Rylands v. Fletcher House Of Lords, L.R.

3 H.L. 330 (1868).

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Fletcher (P) and Rylands (D) had property near to one another. D possessed the land except the mines and veins of coal under the surface. P was possessed of coal mines lying near D's land. D constructed a reservoir separated from P's colliery by intervening land. Under part of the intervening land, P had, by workings lawfully made in his own colliery and the intervening land, opened an underground communication between his own colliery and the old workings under the reservoir. The underground connection between the properties was not known to D nor anyone employed by D. The shafts themselves were filled up with soil; and it was not known to or suspected by Ds, or any of the persons employed by them in making the reservoir, that they led down to old coal workings under its site. The reservoir was constructed over five old shafts, leading down to the workings. When the reservoir was filled with water, it burst down the shafts and flowed by the underground communication into the P's mines. P sued D because he was unable to work his flooded mine for a long time. P was also put to expense in pumping out the water and repairing damage done by it, and lost gains and profits. P also claimed that his workmen were scared of the dangers of working the mines and thus his operation was rendered permanently more expensive and more difficult than it had been or would otherwise have continued to be. The colliery was finally abandoned. An arbiter prepared a special case to the Court of the Exchequer. In the Court of Exchequer, the Chief Baron and Martin, B., were of opinion that P was not entitled to recover at all, Bramwell, B., being of a different opinion. The judgment was for D in the Court of Exchequer by a 2-1 vote; there was no trespass because the damage was not immediate but mediate and consequential, and there was no nuisance because D was doing a lawful and reasonable act. The judgment in the Exchequer was consequently given for D, in conformity with the opinion of the majority of the court. P appealed and the Exchequer reversed and held for P. This was a proceeding in Error against a judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, which had reversed a previous judgment of the Court of Exchequer.