⇒ If the defendant brings onto his land, in a non-natural use of that land, something likely to do mischief it it escapes, and it does escape, the defendant is prima facie liable for all damage which is the natureal consequence of the escape

• The elements of this tort are explored in greater detail below

⇒ The defendant independently contracted to build a reservoir. The contractors negligently failed to block up the claimant's mine which was situated below the land. The water from the reservoir subsequently flooded the mine

⇒ The defendant was not negligent or vicariously liable as he had employed contractors. However, the court said that the defendant was liable anyway under this new rule the court made. The court decided, in this case, that the defendant had brought water to his land in a non-natural use of that land (because water in such quantities is unnatural). As water is likely to do mischief if it escapes - and this water did escape out of the reservoir and down the mineshafts - the defendant was liable for all the damages that were a natural consequence of that mistake.

⇒ The defendant must have brought something onto the land and used that thing in a way which is unnatural on the land he/she owns

⇒ Examples of natural uses of land: having water piped into your house / having electricity brought to your house / fire in a fire place etc.

⇒ See the cases of Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather [1994] and Transco v Stockport MBC [2004]

⇒ The defendant must have brought something onto the land and it must escape from that land

⇒ In Read v J Lyons [1945], Viscount Simon (at 168) said that escape involves an “escape from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over to a place which is outside his occupation or control”

⇒ Also see the case of Gore v Stannard [2014]

⇒ The kind of harm must be foreseeable…

• In Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Lord Goff said: “Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type should be regarded as a prerequisite of liability in damages under the rule”

⇒ … However unlikely an escape may be

• Transco v Stockport MBC [2004]: Even if it is completely improbable the thing will escape, you will be liable for the harm it could potentially do if it did escape

⇒ The person who brings onto his land the mischievous thing

⇒ The occupier who authorises this (i.e. authorises someone to bring onto his land the mischievous thing) or perhaps tolerates it

⇒ Owner of the damaged land

⇒ Owner of the chattels damaged on its land

⇒ Perhaps, even, a person injured on the land. See, for example, Hale v Jennings Bros [1938]

⇒ Statutory permission: for example, in Green v Chelsea Waterworks (1894) a water main burst because of the statutory obligation to keep the mains at a high pressure. The defendant could use this as a defence

⇒ The claimant consents to the accumulation of the escaped thing e.g. Kiddie v City Business Properties [1942]

⇒ The claimant causes the damage

⇒ Contributory negligence by the claimant

⇒ An act of god e.g. Greenock Corp v Caledonian [1917]

⇒ Escape caused by a third party e.g. Richards v Loathiam [1913]

• However, the belief appears to be that the defendant will still be liable for escape caused by third parties where the defendant ought to have reasonably foreseen the result and could have potentially stopped it from occurring
• So in such cases the defendant will “avoid liability, unless the claimant can go onto show that the act which caused the escape was an act of the kind which the owner could reasonable have contemplated and guarded against (Perry v Kendricks)

⇒ If the defendant deliberately causes the escape, then this is more likely to fall under the tort of trespass e.g. Rigby v Chief Const of Northamptonshire [1985]