Read v J. Lyons and Company Limited (1946)

Rylands v Fletcher made a person who brings a dangerous thing onto his land liable, without proof of negligence, for damage caused when it escapes. Read v Lyons is the case that fixed the limits of that rule. The House of Lords unanimously held that there must be an escape — of the thing from land the defendant occupies or controls to a place outside it. An explosion inside the defendant's factory that injured a person inside the factory was not within the rule at all, and without proof of negligence the claim failed.

It is also the case in which the House refused to recognise a general principle of strict liability for "ultra-hazardous" or "dangerous" activities, leaving any such rule to Parliament.

Under an agreement with the Ministry of Supply, J. Lyons & Co operated, managed and controlled the Elstow Ordnance Factory as agents for the Ministry, filling shell-cases with high explosives. The appellant, Miss Read, was a Ministry employee whose duty was to inspect the filling of shell-cases, and her work required her to be present in the shell-filling shop (although she had applied for other employment).

On 31 August 1942, while she was lawfully in the shell-filling shop, an explosion occurred which killed a man and injured her and others. No negligence was averred or proved against the respondents. The plea of volenti non fit injuria was withdrawn before the House. Her damages had been assessed at £575 2s. 8d.

Cassels J at trial held the respondents liable under Rylands v Fletcher, on the ground that they were carrying on an ultra-hazardous activity. The Court of Appeal (Scott, MacKinnon and du Parcq L.JJ.) reversed him. Miss Read appealed to the House of Lords.

1. Does the rule in Rylands v Fletcher apply where the dangerous thing does not escape from the defendant's premises and the injury occurs on those premises?
2. Is there in English law a general rule of strict (absolute) liability, apart from negligence, for injuries caused by dangerous things or ultra-hazardous operations such as manufacturing explosive shells?

The appeal was dismissed with costs. All five Law Lords agreed that the action failed for want of an escape.

Escape is an essential condition (Viscount Simon)

Viscount Simon identified two conditions of Rylands liability: "the condition of " escape " from the land of something likely to do mischief if it escapes, and the condition of " non-natural use " of the land." He did not need to analyse the second, because the first was absent. He defined escape: "Escape ", for the purpose of applying the proposition in Rylands v. Fletcher, "means escape from a place where the defendant has occupation of, or control over, land to a place which is outside his occupation or control." Blackburn J's duty of "keeping in" did not mean preventing an explosive from exploding, but preventing a mischievous thing from escaping from the area the defendant occupies or controls. His conclusion: "Here there is no escape of the relevant kind at all and the Appellant's action fails on that ground."

He also treated Miss Read as in the same position as an invitee. The dangerous nature of the work was "a reason why the standard of care should be high, but it is no reason for saying that the occupier is liable for resulting damage to an invitee without any proof of negligence at all."

No general rule of strict liability for dangerous things (Lord Macmillan)

Lord Macmillan rejected the argument that those who carry on operations dangerous in themselves are liable apart from negligence. "In truth it is a matter of degree." "The more dangerous the act the greater is the care that must be taken in performing it." He thought it "impracticable to frame a legal classification of things as things dangerous and things not dangerous", and concluded: "The sound view, in my opinion, is that the law in all cases exacts a degree of care commensurate with the risk created." If a stricter liability was desirable in the public interest, "it is for Parliament so to enact".

He described the doctrine of Rylands v Fletcher as deriving from "a conception of the mutual duties of adjoining or neighbouring landowners", whose "congeners are trespass and nuisance". The two prerequisites were escape from one man's close to another's, and non-natural use; neither existed here.

The other speeches

Lord Porter: "there must be escape from a place over which a defendant has some measure of control to a place where he has not." Lord Simonds held that the word escape in Blackburn J's judgment "meant to him escape from the defendant's premises and nothing else", rejecting the argument that escape means escape from control wherever the damage occurs.

Points left open

• Non-natural use. Viscount Simon found it unnecessary to decide whether making munitions was a non-natural use, but recorded that if the question arose of munitions made at the Government's request in wartime, he did not think the House would be bound by Rainham Chemical Works to say that it was. Lord Macmillan said he "should hesitate to hold" that building a factory for explosives was a non-natural use in an industrial community.
• Personal injuries. Viscount Simon found it unnecessary to decide whether Rylands covers personal injury as distinct from damage to property; Lord Simonds expressly left it open; Lord Macmillan reasoned that, if the rule rests on sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, "it is manifest that it has nothing to do with personal injuries."

Liability under Rylands v Fletcher requires an escape of the thing from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over land to a place outside his occupation or control. Where a person is injured inside the defendant's premises by a dangerous thing that has not escaped, Rylands does not apply, and the claimant must prove negligence. There is no general rule of English law imposing liability without negligence merely because a thing or activity is dangerous.

• Direct question: State the essentials of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and discuss the requirement of escape. Give the two conditions in Viscount Simon's words, then his definition of escape and Lord Porter's.
• Problem question: a worker or visitor is injured by an explosion or a leak inside a factory, with nothing escaping outside. Apply Read v Lyons: no Rylands liability; the claim stands or falls on negligence and the occupier's duty to an invitee.
• Point worth marks: the House rejected strict liability for "dangerous" activities as a category; the standard instead is care "commensurate with the risk created".
• Cross-reference: use it wherever Rylands v Fletcher is examined, as the leading authority on escape.