Rylands v Fletcher: strict liability for property damage but not personal injury

Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, as restated in Transco plc v Stockport MBC and summarised in Stannard v Gore [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, an occupier who brings or keeps on its land an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances is liable, without proof of negligence, for damage to a neighbouring occupier's property interest caused by the thing's escape, subject to limited defences. Fenbrook kept large quantities of a corrosive solvent in a way the facts describe as an extraordinary use carrying increased danger; the solvent escaped onto neighbouring land and caused foreseeable damage. Mr Lindqvist, as owner-occupier, can therefore recover for the damage to his land and crops even though Fenbrook took all reasonable care. However, Rylands is a species of nuisance protecting interests in land, so a claim for death or personal injury cannot be brought under it. His burns must be claimed in negligence, which would require proof of fault.

Why A is wrong: Personal injury is not recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher, which protects rights in or enjoyment of land.

Why B is wrong: Rylands liability is strict; the claimant need not prove negligence.

Why D is wrong: Physical damage to land and crops is damage to property, not pure economic loss, and it is what Rylands protects; the burns are not recoverable under it.

Why E is wrong: The facts state that this storage was an extraordinary use carrying increased danger, so it was not an ordinary use of land.