ABSTRACT
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher states that a person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. Although the rule in Rylands v Fletcher has been subject to recent judicial scrutiny, there still remain areas of uncertainty and it is doubtful if it adds anything to existing English law. It can also be seen that recent cases have brought an element of certainty into the law regarding Rylands. It is now clear that foreseeability of damage is an essential ingredient, as is an interest in land, and that judicial opinion considers that Rylands is not applicable to personal injuries.
