Tort Law

Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd.

[1947] AC 156

Facts

• J. Lyons & Co. operated a munitions factory during wartime.
• The factory manufactured high-explosive shells for the government.
• Read was an authorised government inspector working inside the factory.
• While she was present in a shell-filling area, an explosion occurred.
• One worker was killed and Read was injured.
• The precise cause of the explosion could not be established.
• No specific negligent act by the factory or its employees was proved.
• Read sought compensation under negligence and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
• She argued that manufacturing explosives was exceptionally dangerous and should attract strict liability.
• The explosion occurred entirely within the factory premises.
• No explosive material or harmful force travelled from the factory to land outside the defendant’s occupation.

• Whether Rylands liability applies without an escape from the defendant’s land.
• Whether carrying on an inherently dangerous activity automatically creates strict liability.
• Whether negligence could be inferred merely from the occurrence of the explosion.

• Escape is an essential element of Rylands v. Fletcher.
• The dangerous thing must move:
o from a place under the defendant’s occupation or control;
o to a place outside that occupation or control.
• Injury occurring wholly within the defendant’s premises does not satisfy this requirement.
• Rylands does not create general strict liability for every dangerous activity.
• Where the claimant relies upon negligence, the claimant must prove breach or establish facts properly supporting res ipsa loquitur.
• An unexplained accident does not always permit an inference of negligence, especially where it may occur despite careful systems.

• Explosive manufacture was undoubtedly hazardous.
• However, the dangerous character of the activity could not replace the legal requirement of escape.
• Read was inside the factory and within the area where the activity was conducted.
• The explosion did not cross the boundary of the defendant’s control.
• The rule in Rylands was developed to address danger introduced on one property and escaping to another.
• Extending it to internal injuries would transform the rule into general enterprise liability for hazardous operations.
• The House of Lords declined to make that expansion.
• On negligence, the evidence did not identify:
o defective equipment;
o careless handling;
o inadequate supervision; or
o violation of a safety procedure.
• Because the precise cause remained unknown, and explosions could occur without negligence in the special circumstances of munitions production, res ipsa did not establish breach.
• Read’s presence as an authorised inspector did not change the geographical requirement of escape.

• The House of Lords held that J. Lyons & Co. was not liable.
• Rylands v. Fletcher was unavailable because there had been no escape from the defendant’s premises.
• The hazardous nature of explosives did not create a separate rule of universal strict liability.
• Negligence had also not been proved.