Rylands and Another v Fletcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1865 |
| Date | 05 May 1865 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 737
Exchequer Division
S. C. 34 L. J. Ex. 177, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 714; 13 W. R. 992. reversed 1866, 4 H. & C. 263; L. R. 1 Ex. 265; 35 L. J. Ex. 154; 12 Jur (N S) 603; 14 W. R. 799: the latter decision affirmed 1868, L. R. 3 H. L. 330, 37 L. J. Ex. 161; 19 L. T. 220: referred to in numerous cases. Applied, Jones v. Festiniog Railway, 1868, L. R 3 Q. B. 736. Not applied, The Thetis, 1869, L. R. 2 Adm. & Ec. 369. Distinguished, Carstairs v. Taylor, 1871, L. R. 6 Ex. 221; Wilson v. Newberry, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 33; Boughton v. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland, 1872, Ir. R. 7 C. L. 169, Ross v. Fedden, 1872, L R 7 Q. B. 666; Dunn v. Birmingham Canal Company, 1872, L. R. 8 Q. B. 52; Madras Railway v. Zemindar of Carvatenagarum, 1874, L. R. 1 Ind. App. 364, Crompton v. Lea, 1874, L. R. 19 Eq. 127; Nichols v. Marsland, 1876, 2 Ex. D. 5, Box v. Jubb, 1879, 4 Ex. D. 79; Anderson v. Oppenheimer, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 602, Snook v. Grand Junction Waterworks Company, 1886, 2 T. L. R. 308; Blake v. Land and House Property Corporation, 1887, 3 T. L. R 667; Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Company, 1894, 10 T. L R. 259; Gill v. Edouin, 1894, 11 T. L. R. 93: affirmed 1895, ibid. 378; Ponting v. Noakes, [1894] 2 Q. B. 285, Greenwell v. Low Beechburn Colliery Company, [1897] 2 Q. B. 178; Blake v. Woolf, [1898] 2 Q B. 428 Considered, Smith v. Fletcher, 1874, L. R. 9 Ex. 64. Not applied, Childs v. Hearn, 1874, L. R. 9 Ex. 183. Applied, Wilson v. Waddell, 1876, 2 A C. 99; Humphreys v. Cousins, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 244; Hurdman v. North Eastern Railway, 1878, 3 C. P. D 174, Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 1878, 4 Ex. D 11; Powell v. Fall, 1880, 5 Q B. D. 599; Dixon v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1881, 7 Q B. D. 423, Tillett v Ward, 1882, 10 Q. B. D. 20; Whalley v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 138; Snow v. Whitehead, 1884, 27 Ch. D. 590; Evans v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 635, Filburn v. People's Palace Company. 1890, 25 Q B. D. 261; National Telephone Company v. Baker, [1893] 2 Ch. 186; Charing Cross Electricity Supply Company v. Hydraulic Power Company. Not applied, Attorney-General v. Tomline, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 229. Followed, Batchellar v. Tunbridge Wells Gas Company, 1901, 84 L. T. 765. Explained, Eastern and South African Telegraph Company v. Cape Town Tramways Companies, [1902] A C. 391
any part of the journey. That principle was recognized and adopted in Seothoi'n v. The 8auth Staffordshire Railway Company (8 Exch. 341). [Martin, B. The decision of the House of Lords in The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company v. Collins (7 Ff L. Cas. 194) is conclusive of this case ] Grove (Horatio Lloyd with him), in support of the rule Pickford Co. were the agents not of the defendants, hut of the Loudon and North Western Railway Company, and had a direct interest in sending goods by that Company The contract of the defendants was to carry the clock to Stafford and there deliver it to the London and North Western Railway Company. [Bramwell, B. Suppose a parcel was delivered to the South Western Railway at Reading addressed to a person at Dover, " per London, Chatham and Dover Railway," which Company would have been liable if it was lost2] The South Western Railway Company would have performed their contract when they delivered the goods to the London, Chatham and Dover Railway There was no proof of a contract by the plaintiff with the defendants The plaintiff's contract [TIC was with Pickford & Co., who contracted with the defendants. Muschamp v. The Lancaster, cte , _Flasiway Company (8 NE. W 421) only decided that where nothing is said about the route, there is prima fade one contract to carry the whole distance. Cur. adv. vult. POLLOCK, C. B , now said,ùThe question in this ease was, whether the Great Western Railway Company were liable to the plaintiff for damage done to his clock during the transit from Worcester to Chester. I am of opinion with the rest of the Court that there was evidence for the jury of one contract only and not two contracts 'The iniry have so found, and we think there was evidence to warrant their finding. The rule must therefore be discharged. Rule discharged. I FLETCHER V. RYLANDS AND HORROCKS. May 3, 4, 5, 1865.ùThe defendant made a reservoir for water on his land, and in the selection of the site and the planning and construction of the reservoir employed a competent engineeer and competent contractors. In excavating the bed of the reservoir five old shafts were met with, running vertically downwards to old coal workings under the site of the reservoir, and communicating with the plaintiff's colliery by means of other old coal workings under intervening lands, These shafts were filled with soil of the same kind as that which immediately surrounded them, and it wa,9 not known to or suspected by the defendant, or the persons employed by him in planning or constructing the reservoir, that they were shafts which had been made for the purpose of getting coal under the land beneath the reservoir, or that they led down to coal workings under its site. When the reservoir was completed, and partially filled with water, one of these shafts burst downwards, in consequence of which the water flowed into the old workings underneath the reservoir, and by means of the underground communication's, into the plaintiff's colliery, and flooded it. There was no personal negligence or default on the part of the defendant, but reasonable and proper care and skill were not exercised by the persons employed, with reference to the shafts, to provide for the sufficiency of the reservoir to bear the pressure of water which, when filled, it would have to bear.ùHeld, that under these circumstances, the defendant was not responsible for the damage done to the plaintiff by the water from the reservoir flooding his colliery : per Pollock, C. B., and Martin, B Dissentiente Bramwell, B.ùPer Bramwell, B. That the defendant was responsible, on the ground that he had mused water to flow into the plaintiff's colliery which but for the defendants' act would not have gone there. {S.. C. 34 L. J. Ex. 177 , 11 Jur. (N. S.) 714; 13 W. R. 992. reversed 1866, 4 It & C. 263 ; L. R. 1 Ex. 265 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 154 ; 12 Jur (N ) 603 ; 14 W. R. 799 : the latter decision affirmed 1868, L. R. 3 H. L. 330 , 37 L. J. Ex_ 161 ; 19 L. T. 220: referred to in numerous cases. Applied, Jones v. Festinzog Railway, 1868, L. R 3 Q. B. 736. Not applied, The Thetis, 1869, L. R. 2 Adm. & Ea 369. Distinguished, Carsiairs v. Taylor, 1871, L R. 6 Ex. 221 ; Wilson v. Newberry, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 33 ; Boughton v. lifullarv/ Great Western Ex. Dry. xv.-24 788 FLETCHER V. HYLANDS 3 H. & C. 775. Railway of Ireland, 1872, Ir. R. 7 C. L. 169 , Ross v. Fedden, 1872, L R 7 Q. B. 666 ; Dunn v. Birmingham Canal Company, 1872, L. R. 8 Q. B. 52 ; Madras Railway v. Zemindar of Carvatenagarurn, 1874, L. R 1 Ind. App. 364 , Crompton v. Lea, 1874, L. R. 19 Eq. 127 ; Nichols v. Marstand, 1876, 2 Ex. D. 5 , Bo v. Jubb, 1879, 4 Er. D. 79; Anderson v. Oppenheimer, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 602, Snook v. Grand Junction Waterworks Company, 1886, 2 T. L. R. 308 ; Blake v. Land and HOUSe Property Corporatios, 1887, 3 T. L. R 667; Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Company, 1894, 10 T. L R. 259 ; Gill v. _Edwin, 1894, 11 T. L. R. 93 : affirmed 1895, ibid. 378; Poniing v. Noakes, [1894] 2 Q. B. 285 , Greenwell v. Low Beeehburn Colliery Company, [1897] 2 Q. B. 178; Blake v. Woolf, [1898] 2 Q B. 428 Considered, Smith v. Fletcher, 1874, L. R. 9 Ex. 64. Not applied, Childs v Hearn, 1874, L. R 9 Ex. 183. Applied, Wilson v. Waddell, 1876, 2 A. C. 99 ; Humphreys v. Cousins, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 244 ; Hui dinan v. North Eastern Railway, 1878, 3 C. P. D 174 Crowhurst v. Amershan Burial Board, 1878, 4 Ex. D 11 ; Powell v. Fall, 1880, 5 Q D. 599 ; Dixon v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1881, 7 Q B. D. 423 , Tillett v Ward, 1882, 10 Q. B. D. 20 ; Whalley v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 138 ; Snow v. Whitehead, 1884, 27 Ch. D. 590; Evans v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 635 , Filburn v. People's Palace Company, 1890, 25 Q B. D. 261; National Telephone Company v. Baker, [1893] 2 Ch. 186 ; Charing Cross E&ctricity Supply Company v. Hydraulic Power Company. Not applied, Attorney-General v. Tontine, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 229. Followed, Batchellar v. Tunbridge Wells Gas Company, 1901, 84 L T. 765. Explained, Eastern and South African Telegraph Company v. Cape Town Tramways Companies, [1902] A C. 391 ] This was an action tried at the Liverpool Summer Assizes, 1862, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff [775] subject to the award of an arbitrator, who was afterwards empowered by a Judge's order to state a special case instead of making an award. The case (so far as material) was as follows : On the 17th November, 1849, the Earl of Wilton, by lease under seal, demised to the plaintiff, from the day of the date of the said lease until the 24th March, 1855, oertain beds of coal lying under certain lands belonging to his lordship, situate in the township of Ainsworth, in the county of Lancaster, with powers of winning and getting the same at a certain acreage rent for the coal gotten, subject to a minimum yearly rent of 10001., such rents to be paid half yearly. On the same 17th day of November, 1849, an agreement in writing was entered into between Lord Wilton and the plaintiff, whereby his lordship agreed to demise to tile plaintiff for sixteen years from the 24th day of March, 1855, all the beds of coal lying under the said last mentioned lands and also under certain other lands of his lordship, situate in the township of Radcliffe, in the same county, at the same acreage rent as was payable under the said lease, subject to a minimum yearly rent of 16001., such last mentioned rents to be also paid half yearly. Soon after the granting of the said lease the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Divergence of Corporate Officer Liability Doctrine Under Patent and Copyright Law
...9 J. LEGAL STUD. 1 (1980).271This notion can be derived from the seminal case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) 159 Eng.Rep. 737, rev’d, L.R. 1 (Ex. 265), aff’d, L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868) (English & Irish Appeals),where the court stated, “the neighbor, who has brought something on his own propert......
-
Table of Cases
...(3d) 1, 2008 ONCA 759 ............................................................................... 208, 212 Fletcher v. Rylands (1865), 3 H. & C. 774, 159 E.R. 737 (Ex. Div.), rev’d (1866), L.R. 1 Ex. 265, aff’d (sub nom. Rylands v. Fletcher) (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330 ...........................
-
THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF COMMON LAW PROPERTY RIGHTS AND REMEDIES IN ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES.
...N Klar, Tort Law, 5th ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2012) ch 16. The original rule is found in Rylands v Fletcher (1866), LR 1 Ex 265 at 279-80, 159 ER 737, and was affirmed by the House of Lords in Rylands, supra note 59 at 339-40 (Lord (117) See e.g. Klar, supra note 116 at 644-56. See also Miha......
-
Mr Fletcher as the Quintessential Nigerian: Could a More In-Depth Analysis of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Reveala Uniquely Nigerian Tort?
...31© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd expressly referred to the case of damage done by the bursting of waterworkscompanies’ reservoirs: (1866) LR 1 Exch 265, 270. Lord Cairns [. . .] hadadvised on the payment of compensation when the second disaster occurred.No matter how broadly the principle was......