Principle of Strict Liability: Ryland V. Fletcher case with exceptions

The overhead water tank on the terrace of your building in Mulund bursts during the monsoon, and the flat on the floor below is ruined. Nobody was careless — the tank was inspected and the society had done everything a sensible society does. Does the owner of the tank still pay? Ordinary negligence law says no, because there is no fault. A rule from a Victorian flooded coal mine says yes, and Indian courts had to decide how far to follow it.

In two minutes

Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, a person who, in the non-natural use of his land, brings and keeps something likely to do mischief if it escapes is answerable for all the damage caused by its escape, even without negligence — subject to recognised exceptions.

The rest of this chapter

The full explanation, the cheat sheet, every previous-year question at every mark weight, the quiz and the answer skeletons are part of Law of Torts, Motor Accident Claims and Consumer Protection on LexBlox Semester. Sign in to unlock the subject, or read Module 1 of Legal Language and Writing free.