The most recent attempt at retrospective rationalisation came in Cambridge Water, where Lord Goff said that the rule was best regarded as an offshoot of the tort of private nuisance, an extension of that cause of action to isolated escapes. Since the plaintiffs suffered physical damage to their property as a result, recovery in negligence was straightforward. By a majority, the court held that on these facts the plaintiff could not recover his losses from the defendants. The significance of this will be addressed later: The second difficulty is that it makes no sense to characterise a given activity or thing as imposing a non-reciprocal risk in the abstract, for it all depends on the circumstances. Help Center Find new research papers in:
The first was that the language Blackburn J. In the Transco case, Lord Bingham summed up the effect of the reformulated rule as follows: Heuston, Salmond on the Law of Torts 11th ed. Finally, the future of a strict liability rule independent of nuisance will be considered. The very thought that such events as were envisaged by Lord Blackburn in Rylands burst reservoirs and the like; things happening by colossal ‘accident’ in an industrial age could be described as foreseeable is perplexing. This explains both the nature n. The House of Lords refused to take this course in Transco, but the reasons their Lordships gave for this refusal were somewhat tenuous.
The Distinctiveness of Rylands v Fletcher. As nusance shall see, however, the later transformation of the rule into a principle of liability for dangerous things severed the connection with real property, and opened the door to claims for personal injury.
His conclusion was that no such awareness was necessary: In any case, there are numerous authorities to the contrary. He stated that the most  common scenarios within the rule were instances of cattle trespass,62 which as its name suggests was generally regarded as a form of trespass to land. Consideration is also given to Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd CLRwhere the High Court of Australia held that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher should be treated as having been absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence, as well as to the desirability of a strict liability rule independent of nuisance.
Surely, then, the better view is that of Lord Denning: Before the Cambridge Water case, the only clear-cut judicial support for the analysis of Rylands v Fletcher as a tort limited to the protection of real property interests was to be found in Read v Lyons,73 a case concerning a munitions inspector injured when an explosion took place in the factory where she was working.
Chapter 19: Answers to end-of-chapter questions
Do you think the courts in this country should follow the Australian High Court and formally view the action under Rylands v Fletcher as a species of negligence? Some Remarks on the Decline of Rylands v.
Finally, the rationale of a principle of this kind is far from clear. Nor were the other justifications provided for rejecting this option persuasive.
(PDF) The Distinctiveness of Rylands v Fletcher | Donal Nolan –
As we have seen, a close reading of the case suggests that trespass, privatr than nuisance, was the established form of liability regarded as providing the closest analogy. They need not be the occupiers of adjoining land, or indeed of any land. An obvious objection is that greater protection is thereby given to proprietary interests than to personal interests, and that this would appear to be indefensible.
Does the action under Rylands v Fletcher serve any useful purpose in the modern day? Finally, the future of a strict liability rule independent of gletcher will be considered.
Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Answers to end-of-chapter questions
By way of contrast to the offshoot theory, the distinctiveness of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is asserted. J, and rylandw per Windeyer J. The argument we are dealing with here is the  contention that the gap between Rylands v Fletcher liability and the tort of negligence has narrowed so much that the two causes of action are now gletcher indistinguishable. Although the principal focus will be on the relationship between the rule and nuisance, that distinctiveness has also been threatened in another way.
Frederick Pollock, The Law of Torts 8th ed. While excavating the bed of the reservoir the contractors had discovered some old shafts, filled in with soil.
He formulated the rule that made the case famous in the following terms: The first was that the language Blackburn J. It is then necessary to determine whether that class of activity constitutes a  natural use having regard to the time, place and circumstances … the exercise does not involve any close examination of the specifics.
Lord Bingham did not think that the fletchef or danger test would be at all easily satisfied: Before the Cambridge Water case, the only clear-cut judicial support for the analysis of Rylands v Fletcher as a tort limited fletchet the protection of real property interests was to be found in Read v Lyons,73 a case concerning a munitions inspector injured when an explosion took place in the factory where she was prigate.
For a similar conclusion, see Transco, n. By Francis Ibekwe Allagoa.
The question asks, however, orivate this should be formalised in the sense it has been in Australia see Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd [ — an answer to this will clearly have to consider whether there would be any potential e. This contention will be examined, and an attempt made to refute it.
Perhaps the two most obvious of these derive from the fact that while private nuisance is a tort against land the Rylands rule overcame its origins in the flecher property context and developed into a cause anf action of more general application.
First, he chose to conceptualise the issue in terms of the violation of a specific right of the plaintiff. By way of contrast to the offshoot theory, the distinctiveness of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher will be asserted.