Fletcher v. Rylands

Brief Fact Summary.

Water from Defendant’s reservoir escaped onto Plaintiff’s land because of an unknown latent defect in Defendant’s subsoil. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trespass.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

This action is maintainable on the plain ground that Defendant has caused water to flow into Plaintiff’s land.

Facts.

Flooding waters from a reservoir constructed on Defendant’s land damaged Plaintiff’s property. The water from the reservoir would not have escaped from Defendant’s land and no mischief would have been done to Plaintiff, but for a latent defect in Defendant’s subsoil. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trespass. Opinions are taken from the intermediate appellate court.

Issue.

Is Defendant liable to Plaintiff in trespass for damage caused as a result of a defect in Defendant’s land if he was not aware of the defect?

Held.

Yes. (B. Bramwell) Judgment for Plaintiff.
* Plaintiff had a right to be free from water artificially brought or sent to him directly, or indirectly. Defendant had no right to pour or send water onto Plaintiff’s land. It does not matter that Defendant did so unwittingly. The knowledge or ignorance of the damage done is immaterial. The burden of proof is not on Defendant.
* This action is maintainable on the plain ground that the Defendant caused water to flow onto Plaintiff’s land. Knowledge and willfulness are not necessary to make Defendant liable. No trespass, nuisance, or negligence must be present.

Dissent.

(B. Martin) Judgment should be in favor of Defendant.
* To constitute trespass, the act doing the damage must be immediate. In this case, the damage was consequential. Secondly, there was no nuisance in the ordinary and generally understood meaning of that word. Making a pond for holding water is a nuisance to no one. Digging a reservoir in Defendant’s own land is a lawful act.
* When damage is done to personal property, there must be negligence on the part of Defendant to render him legally responsible. If there is no negligence then Plaintiff must bear the damage. There is no reason why damage to real property should be governed by a different rule or principle than damage done to personal property.
* If Defendant directly and by his immediate act, cast water upon Plaintiff’s land, it would have been a trespass, but they did not do this. Rather, they dug a reservoir and put water in it, which, by underground openings of which they were ignorant, escaped onto Plaintiff’s land. This is a very different thing from a direct casting of water upon the land. To hold Defendant liable without negligence would effectually make him an insurer.

Discussion.

In this case the court holds Defendant liable for the trespass on the theory of strict liability. Both opinions state that Defendant is not liable on a theory of trespass, nuisance, or negligence.

Fletcher v. Rylands
Citation. L.R. 1 Ex. 265 (1866).

Brief Fact Summary.

Water from Defendant’s reservoir escaped onto Plaintiff’s land because of an unknown latent defect in Defendants’ subsoil. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trespass.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The person for whom his own purposes, brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

Facts.

Plaintiff was damaged by his property being flooded by water, which, without any fault, broke out of a reservoir constructed on Defendant’s land. Water in the reservoir would not have escaped from Defendant’s land and no mischief would have been done to Plaintiff, but for a latent defect in Defendant’s subsoil. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trespass.

Issue.

Is Defendant liable to Plaintiff in trespass for damage caused as a result of a defect in Defendant’s land if they were not aware of the defect?

Held.

Yes. Judgment for Plaintiff.
* The person for who his own purpose brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
* The neighbor, who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his property, but which he knows to be mischievous if it gets on his neighbors, should be obliged to make good the damage it ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. In this case, Defendant is required to compensate Plaintiff because he brought water, which was not naturally there. Had the water not escaped, Defendant would not be liable. Defendant must keep the water on his property at his peril, or he will be answerable for the natural consequences of its escape.
* Courts have held that when damage is done to personal property there must be negligence in the party doing the damage to render him legally responsible. In this case the facts are distinguishable. Here, Plaintiff did not the risk upon himself.

Discussion.

The court held Defendant liable for trespass against Plaintiff because Defendant placed an unnatural body of water on his property, at his peril, and Plaintiff had not taken the risk upon himself. Plaintiff is an innocent neighbor. He should not have to bear the burden of loss associated with Defendant’s use of his land. Plaintiff did not take the risk upon himself because Plaintiff did not cause the water to enter his land and could not have reasonably prevented it from doing so. The outcome of this case would have been different if the water at issue was drain water or percolating water or if Plaintiff had played some part in the unnatural water’s escape.