Tort Law

Rickards v. Lothian

[1913] AC 263

Facts

• Lothian occupied premises situated below another part of a multi-storey building.
• A water basin and tap were located on an upper floor.
• An unknown person entered the premises.
• That person deliberately blocked the basin’s waste outlet using materials placed into the pipe.
• The person then turned on the tap and left the water running.
• Water overflowed from the basin.
• It passed into the lower premises and damaged Lothian’s property, including books or stock.
• The person responsible was neither identified nor shown to be an employee or agent of the occupier controlling the upper premises.
• Lothian sought to impose strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher.
• The defendant argued that:
o an ordinary domestic water supply was a natural use of a building; and
o the damage resulted from the malicious act of a stranger.

• Whether the ordinary supply of water to a building constituted a non-natural use of land.
• Whether the deliberate act of an unknown stranger provided a defence.
• Whether strict liability arose merely because water escaped.

• Rylands liability requires an extraordinary or non-natural use of land involving a special danger.
• Ordinary domestic or commercial use of water in a properly equipped building is generally a natural and ordinary use.
• The rule does not apply merely because a substance capable of causing damage escapes.
• A defendant may rely upon the act of a stranger where:
o the escape was caused by an independent third person;
o the person was outside the defendant’s control; and
o the defendant did not know or reasonably have reason to anticipate the conduct.
• Negligence may still arise if similar interference was foreseeable and reasonable precautions were omitted.

• Installing a basin and maintaining a normal water supply were ordinary features of a modern building.
• The water was not accumulated in an exceptional quantity or used for an unusually hazardous industrial purpose.
• The use therefore lacked the extraordinary character required by Rylands.
• The escape did not occur because of an inherent defect in the water system.
• It resulted from the deliberate act of an unidentified person who blocked the outlet and left the tap running.
• There was no evidence that the defendant had control over that person.
• Nor was there evidence of earlier similar incidents that should have led the defendant to install special security or supervision.
• Imposing strict liability in these circumstances would make every occupier automatically responsible for malicious acts committed by strangers using ordinary household facilities.
• That would extend Rylands far beyond its justification.
• The plaintiff could not establish ordinary negligence because no reasonable precaution against the unusual interference was identified.

• The Privy Council held that the defendant was not liable.
• The normal provision of water in a building was an ordinary and natural use of the premises.
• The deliberate obstruction and release of water by an unknown stranger also provided a complete defence.
• Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply merely because water had escaped and caused damage.