Section 16.5 Rylands v. Fletcher

• Library: Tort Law 2016

C. (§16.5) Rylands v. Fletcher

Strict liability as a theory of recovery has its origins in the old English case of Rylands v. Fletcher, 1 L.R.-Ex. 265 (Ex. Ch. 1866), aff’d, 3 L.R.-E. & I. App. 330 (H.L. 1868). The lower court, The Exchequer Chamber, stated the "true rule" of law:

[T]he person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it as 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.

Rylands, 1 L.R.-Ex. at 279. The House of Lords reduced the effects of the lower court’s ruling by limiting the rule to non-natural uses of property. Rylands, 3 L.R.-E. & I. App. at 338.

Missouri and a majority of states rejected the Exchequer Chamber’s ruling that a defendant is strictly liable when anything under the defendant’s control escapes and damages another. See:

· Clay v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 951 S.W.2d 617, 623 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)

· Bennett v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.

...