The Merits of Rylands V Fletcher

Posted: 29 Feb 2008

See all articles by John Murphy

John Murphy

The University of Manchester - School of Law

Date Written: 2004

Abstract

English and Australian judges have, over the past few decades, severely questioned the juridical distinctiveness and utility of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The popular assertion in this country has been that the rule is really only a sub-species of the law of private nuisance. By contrast, the Australian judiciary has abandoned the rule altogether, preferring to expand the law of negligence to capture the rule's former territory. This article seeks to defend the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. In particular it asserts that, by reference to their historical origins, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and the law of private nuisance can be seen to be quite different creatures. It also argues that there is strong case for the rule's continued vitality, and that it would be a grave mistake to abandon it in favour of a yet more expansive law of negligence.

Suggested Citation

Murphy, John, The Merits of Rylands V Fletcher ( 2004). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 643-669, 2004, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=815102

John Murphy (Contact Author)

The University of Manchester - School of Law ( email )

Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL, M139PL
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
1,972
PlumX Metrics