This document summarizes the rule of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). The rule holds that a person may be liable for harm caused, even without negligence, in certain situations involving dangerous things or non-natural uses of land. Specifically, the rule applies if 1) a dangerous thing escapes, 2) onto another's land, 3) due to a non-natural use of the land by the defendant. The rule was established in Rylands v. Fletcher, where water stored in a reservoir on the defendant's land flooded the plaintiff's mines through undiscovered shafts. Though the defendant was not negligent, he was still held liable under the rule of strict liability.

1. Rule of Strict
Liability :-
There are situation when a person may be liable
for some harm even though he is not negligent
in causing same. In other word, sometimes law
recognized ‘No fault’ liability. In this,
connection, the rule laid down in two cases,
firstly, in the decision of house of lords in
Rylands v/s Fletcher,(1868) and secondly, in
decision of supreme court of India M.c Mehta
v/s Union of India,(1987) may be noted.

2. THE RULE IN RYLANDS V/S FLETCHER:-
It has been noted above that in Rylands v/s Fletcher
In 1868, the house of lord laid down the rule recognizing
‘No Fault’ liability. The liability recognized was ‘strict
liability’, i.e., even if the defendant did not intentionally
cause the harm or he was careful, he could still be made
liable under the rule.
In Rylands v/s Fletcher, the defendant got a reservoir
constructed , though independent contractor s, over his
land for providing water to his mill. There were old shafts
under the site of the reservoir, which the contactors
failed to observe and so did not block them. Which the
water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the
shafts and flooded the plaintiff coal mines on the
adjoining land. The defendant did not know of the shaft
and had not been negligent although the independent
contractor had been. Even though the defendant had not
been negligent, but he was held liable.

3. For the application of the rule therefore, the
following three essentials should be there :
(1)Dangerous Thing
(2) Escape
(3)Non –natural use of land
(1)Dangerous Thing
According to this rule, the liability for escape of a
thing from one’s land arises provided the thing
collected was a dangerous thing, i.e., a thing
likely to do mischief if it escape. In Rylands v/s
Fletcher the thing so collected was a large
body of water. The rule has also been applied
to gas, electricity, vibration, yew trees, sewage,
flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, and rusty

4. (2)Escape
The case of Read v/s Lyons & co. in that case,
the plaintiff was an employee in the
defendant’s factory while she was performing
her duties inside the defendant’s factory which
was being manufactured there, exploded
whereby she was injured. There was no
evidence of negligence on the part of thing, it
was held that the defendant were not liable
because there was no “escape” of the thing
outside the defendant’s premises and,
therefore, the rule in Rylands v/s Fletcher did
not apply to this case.

5. (3)Non-natural use of land
Water collected in the reservoir in such a huge
quantity in Rylands v/s Fletcher was held to
be non-natural use of land. Keeping water for
ordinary domestic purposes in ‘natural use’. For
the use to be non-natural, it “must be some
special use bringing with it increased danger to
other, and must not ordinary use of land or such
a use as is proper for the general benefit of
community.

6. Exceptions to the Rule
The following exception to the rules have been
recognized by Rylands v/s Fletcher and
some later cases :
(i) Plaintiff’s own default;
(ii) Act of God;
(iii) Consent of the plaintiff;
(iv) Act of the third party;
(v) Statutory authority.