Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] AC 156 (HL)

Facts

• During the Second World War, Mrs. Read, employed by the Ministry of Supply, was inspecting a munitions factory operated by J Lyons & Co Ltd.
• While on the defendant's premises, Mrs. Read was injured by an explosion of a shell within the factory.
• Mrs. Read did not allege negligence but brought a claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, contending the company was strictly liable for harm caused by explosives brought onto their land.
• The incident occurred entirely within the boundaries of the defendant's property, with no harmful substance crossing onto other land.

Issues

1. Whether liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires an “escape” of the dangerous substance from the defendant’s property onto the claimant’s land.
2. Whether personal injury is recoverable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, or if it is limited to damage to property.
3. Whether manufacturing explosives during wartime amounted to non-natural use of land for the purposes of the Rylands v Fletcher principle.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies only where there has been an “escape” of a dangerous substance from the defendant’s land onto other property; this requirement was not satisfied in this case.
• The House clarified that personal injury cannot be recovered under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which deals exclusively with property rights and not with personal safety.
• The use of the land for manufacturing explosives during wartime was not found to constitute a non-natural use of land in the given industrial and wartime context.
• The claim failed as the necessary conditions for strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher were not met.

Legal Principles

• Strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher is triggered only by an escape of a dangerous substance from the defendant’s property onto another’s land.
• The rule is grounded in mutual duties between neighboring landowners and is closely related to nuisance and trespass, not personal injury.
• Personal injury is not actionable under Rylands v Fletcher; the doctrine is confined to property damage.
• The required use of land must be non-natural, meaning extraordinary or unusual in the context; ordinary uses, even if involving dangerous substances, may not be sufficient.
• Later cases, including Transco plc v Stockport MBC, have reaffirmed these limitations and the narrow scope of strict liability in this area.

Conclusion

The House of Lords in Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd clarified the strict limits of liability under Rylands v Fletcher, requiring escape to other property, restricting claims to property damage, and maintaining that only non-natural uses of land fall within the rule, thus ensuring that strict liability remains narrowly confined within English tort law.