Rylands v Fletcher

374:, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbour's reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbour's privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his neighbour's alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour who has brought something on his own property (which was not naturally there), harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there, so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequence. And upon authority this we think is established to be the law, whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches. 425:

either above or below ground in quantities and in a manner not the result of any work or operation on or under the land, - and if in consequence of their doing so, or in consequence of any imperfection in the mode of their doing so, the water came to escape and to pass off into the close of the Plaintiff, then it appears to me that that which the Defendants were doing they were doing at their own peril; and, if in the course of their doing it, the evil arose to which I have referred, the evil, namely, of the escape of the water and its passing away to the close of the Plaintiff and injuring the Plaintiff, then for the consequence of that, in my opinion, the Defendants would be liable. As the case of Smith v. Kenrick is an illustration of the first principle to which I have referred, so also the second principle to which I have referred is well illustrated by another case in the same Court, the case of

31: 652:

use and occupation of the Property" seems not to "exceed the entire value of the land" as written in the registry. This means in effect that the relocation costs (of, say, a farming operation, or an abode) or emotional damage are likely not payable by the expropriator. Even municipalities cannot exclude miners. The powers of an arbitrator include compensation for land, timber and time, but expressly do not include watershed, health and welfare, or lost cattle. Miners avoid environmental review; the province has no discretion to refuse mineral leases; miners need not notify landowners of transactions; the province can exempt mines from review when mining commences; and landowners do not have rights to refuse to negotiate.

421:

course of the enjoyment of land be used; and if, in what I may term the natural user of that land, there had been any accumulation of water, either on the surface or underground, and if, by the operation of the laws of nature, that accumulation of water had passed off into the close occupied by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not have complained that that result had taken place. If he had desired to guard himself against it, it would have lain upon him to have done so, by leaving, or by interposing, some barrier between his close and the close of the Defendants in order to have prevented that operation of the laws of nature....

547:, notes that "the doctrine has not flourished... a tort imposing strict liability should be closely interpreted and circumspectly applied". It has been argued that the decision was never entirely accepted by the judiciary as a whole, and that it is difficult to justify. This is for two reasons; firstly, it is a case of very limited applicability, and it has been suggested that it be folded into a general principle of strict liability for "ultra-hazardous" activities. Secondly, subsequent case law in England and Wales, particularly in 274:

mine. Rather than blocking these shafts up, the contractors left them. On 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands' reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher pumped the water out, but on 17 April 1861 his pump burst, and the mine again began to flood. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal shafts were discovered. Fletcher brought a claim against Rylands and the landowner, Jehu Horrocks, on 4 November 1861.

1259:

development programme, it was necessary to carry out inherently dangerous or hazardous industry, a new rule had to be laid down to adequately deal with the problems arising in a highly industrialised economy. This new rule had to be based on the English rule of strict liability, but had to be even more stringent, as a result of which no firm carrying out an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity might escape from liability, irrespective of whether there was any negligence involved on the part of the firm or not.

1239:, proved to be rather ineffective with the passage of time to counter the dangerous use of one's property or an industry that produced substances or wastes detrimental to public health. The pre-requirements essential for establishing a liability under the principle of strict liability viz., the non-natural use of land, use of a dangerous thing, and the element of escape provided substantial loopholes to the enterprises to escape liability under the 329:, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. He stated that "the general law, wholly independent of contract" should be that the defendants were liable, "on the plain ground that the defendants have caused water to flow into the 's mines, which but for their act would not have gone there..." 413: 350: 396:, in speaking for the House of Lords, stated their agreement of the rule stated above by Mr Justice Blackburn, but added a further limitation on liability, which is that the land from which the escape occurs must have been modified in a way which would be considered non-natural, unusual or inappropriate. The case was then heard by the 227:

has both been distinguished with and regarded as a species of the tort of private nuisance. Unlike ordinary cases of private nuisance, the rule in Rylands requires the escape of a thing that arises from a non-natural use rather than the typical interference emanating from unreasonable use of land. It

1303:

applies will be ordinary or compensatory; but in cases where the rule applicable is the one laid down in MC Mehta's case the court can allow exemplary damages, and the bigger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater can be the amount of compensation payable by it. A small bump in the road was

1283:

is not dependent upon any such condition. The necessary requirements for applicability of the new rule of absolute liability are that the defendant is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and that harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or

1065:

as being distinct from negligence and the rules of duty of care and liability applied there, the principle in Scotland was that "negligence is still the ground of liability. The only difference is that in such cases the proprietor is doing something upon his property which is in its nature dangerous

445:

The 'enjoyment of land' was primary in the reasons of Lord Cairns (above). This foundation stone is a recurring theme in the common law throughout the ages, to wit: "It has been well said, that the use of the law consists, first, in preserving men's persons from death and violence; next, in securing

424:

On the other hand if the Defendants, not stopping at the natural use of their close, had desired to use it for any purpose which I may term a non-natural use, for the purpose of introducing into the close that which in its natural condition was not in or upon it, for the purpose of introducing water

316:

The case then went to the Exchequer of Pleas, where it was heard between 3 and 5 May 1865. It was heard on two points: first, whether the defendants were liable for the actions of the contractors and secondly, whether the defendants were liable for the damage regardless of their lack of negligence.

273:

with water. Rylands played no active role in the construction, instead contracting out to a competent engineer. While building it, the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts and passages under the land filled loosely with soil and debris, which joined up with Thomas Fletcher's adjoining

1267:

If an enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident (including indemnification of all those who suffer harm in the accident) arising on

1262:

The court also pointed out that the duty owed by such an enterprise to the society is “absolute and non-delegable” and that the enterprise cannot escape liability by showing that it had taken all reasonable care and there was no negligence on its part. The bases of the new rule as indicated by the

651:

is quite limited, as case law has developed over liability "to compensate the owner of a surface area for loss or damage caused by the entry, occupation or use of that area" (MTA) and "compensation for nuisance and disturbance from the entry, occupation or use" (PNGA). The compensation for "entry,

420:

My Lords, the principles on which this case must be determined appear to me to be extremely simple. The Defendants, treating them as the owners or occupiers of the close on which the reservoir was constructed, might lawfully have used that close for any purpose for which it might in the ordinary

509:

meant that judges would again impose strict liability on defendants who accumulated dangerous things on their land without any need to prove negligence or wrongful intent. The decision won support for bringing the law relating to private reservoirs up to standard with the law relating to public

1296:, though strict in the sense that it is not dependent on any negligence on the part of the defendant and in this respect similar to the new rule, is not absolute as it is subject to many exceptions but the new rule in Mehta's case is not only strict but absolute and is subject to no exception. 995:; " is not a test to be inflexibly applied: a use may be extraordinary and unusual at one time or in one place but not so at another time or in another place...I also doubt whether a test of reasonable user is helpful, since a user may well be quite out of the ordinary but not unreasonable"... 534:

wrote that it "put a clog upon natural and reasonably necessary uses of matter and tend to embarrass and obstruct much of the work which it seems to be a man's duty carefully to do". The American interpretation was based primarily on the idea that it would cause economic harm. Further American

1258:

rule. In this case, which involved the leakage of and the harm caused by Oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram industries in Delhi, the court held that keeping in mind the needs and demands of a modern society with highly advanced scientific knowledge and technology where for the sake of

565:

states that "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law" is recognised. However it is difficult to adjudicate on this Bill, especially as the provinces have priority over

1291:

will not cover cases of harm to persons within the premises where the inherently dangerous activity is carried out, for the rule requires escape of the thing which causes harm from the premises. The new rule makes no distinction between the persons within the premises where the enterprise is

946:

that "I do not think the mischief or danger test should be at all easily satisfied. It must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised, or judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place and time, he ought reasonably to have recognised, as giving rise to an

791:

said, as a "sub-species of nuisance...while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose; and...restate it so as to achieve as much certainty and clarity as is attainable". It is now a sub-tort, rather than an independent tort; they have confirmed that it will be allowed to remain.

470:

was considered a remedy for all tortious wrongs, and sometimes used as a synonym for torts generally. Over the centuries, however, judges focused more on the intent and negligence behind the actions than the nature of the actions themselves, leading to the development of

190:

Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir on his land. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (equivalent to £111,200 in 2023). Fletcher brought a claim under

222:

imposed strict liability on those found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negligence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and marked a significant doctrinal shift. The rule in

1015: 307:

being appointed in December 1864. The arbitrator decided that the contractors were liable for negligence, since they had known about the old mine shafts. Rylands, however, had no way of knowing about the mine shafts and so was not.

981: 709: 360:

We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes 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

228:

additionally does not require an act to be continuous, which is typically a requirement for nuisance. Academics have criticised the rule both for the economic damage such a doctrine could cause and for its limited applicability.

925: 199:, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the 1814:

Ellen Smith (plaintiff/respondent) v. Inco Limited (defendant/appellant) (C52491; 2011 ONCA 628) Indexed As: Smith v. Inco Ltd. Ontario Court of Appeal, Doherty and MacFarland, JJ.A., and Hoy, J.(ad hoc) October 7, 2011

569:

A difficulty is encountered with the definition of "property", as remarked by Johansen, which may well be the reason why the matter remains for interpretation by precedent. The 1974 test case for the Bill of Rights,

367:

answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the Plaintiff’s default; or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of

1218:

principles "should now been seen ... as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence, and not as an independent principle of strict liability". Contrasting this, the principles have escaped destruction in

1066:

and not necessary (or usual?) in the ordinary management of the particular kind of property, and he is therefore bound to observe a higher degree of diligence to prevent injury to his neighbour". The use of

969:, as "some special use bringing with it increased danger to others". Because the idea of something being "non-natural" is a subjective one, the interpretation of this principle has varied over the years. In 1076: 408:

failed to attend. The eventual judgment confirmed Blackburn's decision and general principle, adding a requirement that the use be "non-natural". The judgment of Lord Cairns was as follows.

187:. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable. 887: 1292:

operating and persons outside the premises because escape of the thing causing harm from the premises is not a necessary condition for the applicability of the rule. Further, the rule in

1035:

claim. Other valid defences are where the claimant has consented, expressly or impliedly, to the accumulation of the "thing", and where there is statutory authority for the accumulation.

1031:, courts instead apportion damages, taking into account how much of the harm was contributed by the claimant. Nevertheless, contributory negligence is still a viable partial defence to a 913:

claim that there be an escape of a dangerous thing "from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control". In

813:

ruled that to make exceptions would transform nuisance from a tort against land to a tort against the person, and should not be permitted. John Murphy, Professor of Common Law at the

1009: 923:

was held not to apply, because there was no escape. The dangerous thing that escapes does not always have to be the thing which was accumulated, but there must be a causal link. In

715: 636: 847:, the accumulation was of metal foil strips. "For his own purpose" is not understood to be "for his benefit", although that was what Blackburn was referring to at the time; in 1019:, the principle was established that if a claimant knows of the unknown third party and their actions, the defendant is additionally likely to be able to deny liability. As 1007:; act of an unknown third party, contributory negligence, consent and statutory authority. An act of an unknown third party will absolve the defendant of liability, as in 915: 893: 843: 881: 2745:

Woodside III, Frank C.; Mark L. Silbersack; Travis L. Fliehman; Douglas J. Feichtner (2003). "Why Absolute Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is Absolutely Wrong!".

1053: 899: 849: 669: 1947: 1172: 1162: 971: 251: 235:

has been disclaimed in various jurisdictions, including Scotland, where it was described as "a heresy that ought to be extirpated", and Australia, where the

991: 965: 934: 871: 731: 632: 549: 427: 257: 1150: 1132: 621:

as precedent law. However, it has been said that the Court of Appeal erred in law in their adjudication over the words "non-natural". In April 2012, the

378:

Blackburn's opinion relied on the liability for damages to land available through the tort of chattel trespass and the tort of nuisance, as well as the

1308:

and doubts were expressed as to the quantum of damages payable. But the Supreme Court set all doubts aside in another landmark decision in the case of

1156: 985:, so was the operation of a munitions factory during war-time. There is no single concrete test to define what is "non-natural", for reasons given by 721: 1593: 1359:

Since this criticism was levelled, English courts have made decisions which allow for nuisance claims for one-off events in certain circumstances.

613:. A subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in 2010 found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of economic harm, raising the 501:

was never even considered. The case is instead thought of as one of the best attempts of early 19th century English judges to build up the law of

1551: 905: 739:

is "a remedy for damage to land or interests in land. It must...follow that damages for personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule".

857:

was held to apply to a local authority accumulating sewage on its land, although there was no benefit to the local authority from doing this.

317:

They decided for the first point that the defendants were not liable, but were split on the second point. Baron Channell recused. Chief Baron

1210: 1118: 1028: 771: 466:

Early English common law had, in many instances, imposed liability on those who had caused harm regardless of wrongful intent or negligence.

241: 841:, this was the keeping of water in a reservoir; other cases in England and Wales have illustrated what sort of material is considered. In 1299:

Another important point of distinction between the two rules is in the matter of award of damages. Damages awardable where the rule in

1271:

The enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or danger and to provide warning against potential hazards.

686: 553:, has undermined the "non-natural use" element by introducing a cost/benefit analysis which severely limits the decision's usefulness. 1838:"No Harm, No Nuisance - The Ontario Court of Appeal Lays Out What Will, and Will Not, Fly in Proving Nuisance: Smith v. Inco Limited" 947:

exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape, however unlikely an escape may have been thought to be."

788: 719:

confirmed that an interest in land was not necessary to bring a claim. Historically, personal injury claims have been allowed, as in

817:, agrees with Nolan, and makes the additional point that nuisance is focused on a loss of enjoyment to land, not physical damage as 1057:, where a fire spreading from the defendant's land to the claimant's land caused property damage. Scots lawyers and judges applied 956: 810: 726: 397: 180: 41: 2831: 1123: 1081: 821:

is. It has also been concerned that the reasonable use test, which appears in nuisance, is not applicable to cases brought under

577: 510:

reservoirs, which contained similar statutory provisions thanks to a pair of private Acts of Parliament passed in 1853 and 1864.

1279:

requires non-natural use of land by the defendant and escape of the thing from his land, which causes damage. But the rule in

753:

should not further be developed, and that rather than being an independent tort it should be instead considered a sub-tort of

2536: 2412: 1657:

John Richards, (1832) The Legal Observer or Journal of Jurisprudence, John Richards Law Bookseller and Publisher, vol 4 p 52

960: 746: 572: 761:, were a more modern and appropriate way of addressing environmental problems which would previously have been covered by 400:

on 6 and 7 July 1868, with a judgment delivered on 17 July. Oddly the court consisted of only two judges, Lord Cairns and

326: 196: 2754: 1027:, any contributory negligence voids most of the claim. Initially it was sufficient to offset the case itself; with the 929:, explosives stored on the defendant's land led to the escape of rocks in a blast, and the defendant was found liable. 405: 318: 2806: 1870: 1848: 1837: 758: 401: 218:, and had focused on the intention behind the actions rather than the nature of the actions themselves. In contrast, 153: 130: 909:, where it was not just the type of thing kept but the sheer amount which created the danger. It is essential for a 325:

held that the defendants were not liable, as since a negligence claim could not be brought there was no valid case.

581: 353: 342: 1859: 1092:

was not a part of Scots law, and the idea that it ever had been valid was "a heresy that ought to be extirpated".

799:

as part of private nuisance is unsound. Private nuisance requires the claimant to have an interest in land, while

2796: 490: 30: 2791: 1914: 1112:

is commonly cited as the origin of that rule (particularly where strict liability is based on the defendant's "

875:

this did not have to be a dangerous item (see below); the risk was instead in its behaviour if it escapes. In

707:

claim is an owner or occupier of land, along with anyone who stores or collects the dangerous material, as in

2821: 2816: 2801: 1436: 2826: 393: 148: 125: 1904:

Western Industrial Clay Products Ltd. v. Mediation and Arbitration Board v. Bepple, 2004 BCSC 259 (CanLII)

526:, although many American scholars and judges of the time felt that judgment was a poor one. Chief Justice 2684: 1959: 1903: 1892: 1826: 1141: 531: 210:

This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact on the law. Prior to

269:

In 1860, Rylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the

2563:

Glofcheski, Richard (1994). "Reasonable Foreseeability, Pollution and the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher".

1268:

account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads; and

1243:

rule. Moreover, the exceptions provided within the rule (and restated by the Supreme Court of India in

1127: 322: 270: 200: 103: 2811: 1137: 805: 447: 2744: 2675:(1984). "Legal Liability for Bursting Reservoirs: The Historical Context of "Rylands v. Fletcher"". 1188:, which it was never intended to do; while absolute liability is where no defence is applicable, in 1145: 814: 2546:

Fordham, Margaret (2004). "Surviving Against the Odds - the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Lives On".

1192:

itself Lord Cairns accepted that there were some situations where the case should not be applied.

2404: 1205: 1113: 754: 664: 622: 562: 540: 536: 476: 467: 292: 288: 236: 1768: 1794: 837:

is that the defendant "for his own purposes brings onto land and collects and keeps there". In

803:

does not; although exceptions to this rule have occasionally been made in private nuisance, in

606: 1535: 1223:, where the courts are yet to follow the examples set by Australia and England and Wales, and 614: 261:

make it clear that it is no longer an independent tort, but instead a sub-tort of nuisance.

2609: 527: 384:, injury by a domesticated animal known to have a disposition to injure. Rylands appealed. 291:

was inapplicable, as the flooding was deemed not to be "direct and immediate"; the tort of

1784:(2003 Student ed.). Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited. pp. 1066–1067. 195:

against Rylands. At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands.

8: 1936: 296: 392:

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and agreed with the determination for Fletcher.

2704: 1545: 1383: 1185: 1061:

differently from their English counterparts, however. While the rule is interpreted in

601: 580:, which specifically excludes the "enjoyment of property" for reasons described in the 304: 98: 1805:

G.H.L. Fridman, The Law of Torts in Canada 2d 3d. (Scarborough: Carswell, 2002) at 218

2758: 2733: 2708: 2696: 2660: 2639: 2572: 2551: 2532: 2511: 2490: 2455: 2434: 2408: 1062: 523: 485: 338: 2725: 2688: 2672: 2631: 2480: 1881: 1335: 1325: 1105: 1085: 1024: 640: 535:

criticism is based on the idea that it is poor law. Firstly, they argue, it is not

498: 215: 184: 2776: 1816: 955:

The requirement of "non-natural use", which was created when the case went to the

77: 1389: 1860:"Decisions - Applications for Leave: Ellen Smith v. Inco Limited" SCC 2012-04-26 2600: 2584: 2422: 1925: 1394: 1390:"The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)" 628: 455: 2525: 2446:

Cameron, Gordon (2004). "Scots and English Nuisance... Much the Same Thing?".

1882:"War Brewing' over Mining Rights in Rural BC" Salcito, 14 Jun 2006, TheTyee.ca 1247:) afford ample opportunity to the commercial enterprises to escape liability. 2785: 2762: 2737: 2700: 2664: 2643: 2576: 2555: 2515: 2494: 2459: 2438: 1340: 1177: 1101: 869:

is that the thing be something "likely to do mischief if it escapes". Before

451: 2635: 2485: 2468: 1316:

and was appropriate and suited to the conditions prevailing in the country.

295:

was rejected as this was a one-off event. The case was first heard by Judge

986: 939: 919:, an explosion in a munitions factory killed an inspector on the property. 341:

of six judges. The prior decision was overturned in his favour. Mr Justice

631:

in the subsurface seem to be preferred over the landowner's rights by the

2729: 1330: 903:. The extent of the "thing"'s accumulation can also be considered, as in 363: 1937:"Company Grabs Mining Rights to Premier’s Land" 19 Apr 2005, TheTyee.ca 1893:

Bepple v. Western Industrial Clay Products Ltd., 2004 BCCA 497 (CanLII)

780: 674: 660: 644: 592: 502: 472: 192: 2716:

Waite, A. J. (2006). "Deconstructing the rule in Rylands v Fletcher".

1220: 1048: 370: 543:, because there is no continuous action. Glofcheski, writing in the 2692: 2502:

Cane, Peter (1994). "The Changing Fortunes of Rylands v Fletcher".

1666:

Sources of English Constitutional History, Stephenson & Marcham

1312:

where, it was held that the rule laid down in Mehta's case was not

380: 214:, English courts had not based their decisions in similar cases on 203:

and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in

2651:

Nolan, Donal (2005). "The distinctiveness of Rylands v Fletcher".

713:. The party suing was initially one with an interest in land, but 412: 1871:"Supreme Court of Canada denies leave to appeal in Smith v. Inco" 1849:"Judgment overturned in major Ontario environmental class action" 1235:

The rule of strict liability famously laid down by Blackburn, in

1166:

respectively. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, however, reversed

1016:

Northwestern Utilities Ltd v London Guarantee and Accident Co Ltd

1003:

There are several defences in England and Wales to a claim under

677:

had ample scope to support the liability of the Quebec Power Co.

588: 300: 349: 2427:

University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register

1960:"2013 ABQB 537 (CanLII) | Ernst v. EnCana Corporation | CanLII" 610: 2587:; Buckley, R. A. (1994). "The return of Rylands v Fletcher". 2479:(2). Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland: 236–265. 659:

in Quebec law, which is based for historical reasons on the

539:, since the damage is not direct, and secondly, it is not a 454:

on the occasion of the 1832 riots over the rejection in the

1254:

evolved a more stringent rule of strict liability than the

979:

filled with petrol was considered "non-natural", while in

670:

Vandry et al. v. Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co.

2622:

Murphy, John (2004). "The merits of Rylands v Fletcher".

976: 1310:

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India

982:

Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd

710:

Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd

479:

and the further development of trespass. At the time of

1915:

Falkoski v. Osoyoos (Town of), 1998 CanLII 2817 (BC SC)

584:

page. Fridman on Torts in Canada has helpful material.

1626: 1624: 1173:

Department of Environmental Protection v. Ventron Corp

879:

the "thing" was water. Other examples are fire, as in

299:

and a special jury in September 1862 at the Liverpool

416:

Lord Cairns fully concurred with Mr Justice Blackburn

252:

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc

2522: 992: