Notes and Comments

1.Prof.Simpson,in Legal Liability for Bursting Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v.Fletcher,13 J.Leg.Stud.209 (1984),states that bursting dams were a particular problem at the time and that events had prompted public inquires and legislation concerning the liability of dam owners.The reservoir in this case was located in a part of Lancashire devoted to coal mining.The American equivalent would be a reservoir in the immediate vicinity of Scranton,Pennsylvania.Has this any significance? In China,an equivalent would be a reservoir in Datong area of Shanxi.Would the law be different?

2.It was noted in Prof.Bohlen’s article The Rule in Rylands v.Fletcher (59 U.Pa.L.Rev.298 (1911)),as a “materialistic” explanation of this case,that the judges who authored the opinions belonged to the landed gentry,and were seeking to protect that class against the encroachments of industry.

3.In the United States,Rylands was first followed in some states,but flatly rejected by name in others as Maine,New Hampshire,New York,etc.The three leading cases rejecting the rule,however,were either based on distinguishable facts (explosion of steam boilers or runaway horse) or followed a different line of reasoning (customary or natural uses,for which the English courts would certainly never have applied the rule).This case was treated as holding that the defendant is absolutely liable whenever anything whatever escapes from his control and causes damages.In other words,the rule of the case was misstated,and as misstated,was rejected.(https://www.daowen.com)

4.In recent years,however,the American trend has been very much in favor of approval of the case,and a majority now favor the case.What factors may have influenced recent courts to accept the Rylands principle? Have there been changes in society that made courts more willing to impose strict liability for hazardous activities.