판결 이유
Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is a prerequisite for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and in nuisance. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a sub-species of nuisance and should be developed in that context. Strict liability does not mean liability for unforeseeable consequences.
사실관계
Eastern Counties Leather used a chemical solvent (PCE) in its tanning process for many years. Spillages of the solvent seeped through the concrete floor of the tannery, into the soil, and contaminated the underground water supply. Cambridge Water Company's borehole, 1.3 miles away, was contaminated. The water company sued for the cost of finding a new water source.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held that Eastern Counties Leather was not liable. Lord Goff held that foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is a prerequisite for liability under Rylands v Fletcher, just as in nuisance and negligence. At the time the spillages occurred, the contamination of the water supply was not foreseeable — the pathway through the underground strata was not known. The case importantly confirmed that Rylands v Fletcher is a sub-species of private nuisance, not an independent cause of action based on general strict liability.
주요 인용문
"It by no means follows that the defendant should be held liable for damage of a type which he could not reasonably foresee."
— Lord Goff
후속 처리
Leading authority on the requirement of foreseeability in Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance claims.
Applied in Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] where the House of Lords further confirmed the restrictive approach to Rylands v Fletcher.