Wheels On Fire: A Cautionary Tale Of Nuisance

Rylands v Fletcher1is one of the most iconic judgments ever to have been handed down by an English court. It established the principle that a person who brings something onto his land which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, keeps it at his peril and will be strictly liable for any damage caused by the thing's escape. In Stannard (t/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore2, the Court of Appeal has given helpful guidance on the application of the Rylands v Fletcher rule to cases involving the escape of fire. Property and liability insurers will be pleased to note that it applies only in very restricted circumstances.

The background

Mr Stannard ran a business supplying and fitting tyres and stored around 3,000 of them on his land. An electrical fire broke out, which ignited the tyres. The fire spread rapidly, destroying neighbouring premises owned by Mr Gore. Mr Gore brought a claim in negligence and in strict liability.

The first instance decision

At first instance, the negligence claim was dismissed; there was no evidence that Mr Stannard had been negligent in the manner in which he had maintained the electrics or stored the tyres. However, Mr Stannard was held strictly liable to Mr Gore under the Rylands v Fletcher principle. In this regard, the court held that although the tyres themselves were not flammable unless subjected to sufficient heat or flame, they did have a special fire risk quality. Moreover, the manner in which the tyres were stored meant there was an exceptionally high risk of damage to Mr Gore's property if a fire broke out. The large quantity of tyres stored on the premises was out of the ordinary and was a "non-natural" use of the land. These factors brought the case within Rylands v Fletcher. Mr Stannard appealed.

The Court of Appeal decision

The only issue on appeal was whether the rule in Rylands v Fletcher had been correctly identified and applied, having regard to the principles for the modern application of the ruleas laid down by the House of Lords in Transco Plc v. Stockport MBC.3In particular, should it be applied in fire cases as well as inother, more classic, cases of escaping dangerous things?

The Court of Appeal was unanimous in allowing the appeal.

Lord Justice Ward, giving the leading judgment, held that in an appropriate case damage caused by fire emanating from an adjoining property could fall within the Rylands v Fletcher rule. However, the appropriate case was likely to be "very rare" and this was not one of them...