:yellow_heart: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher (strict liability)
this is a special type of nuisance liabiliy, which arises when an abnormal or 'non-natural' activity on D's land results in something harmful escaping from their land on to that of their neighbour, where it causes damage
after the ruling in :red_flag: Cambridge Water company, it was decided that R v F rules are another type of private nuisance rather than its own separate form of nuisance
:!: this means that all of the rules that apply to private nuisance like the idea that you need to have some form of damage even if its interference with a right of easement as long as it is with a property right, the idea of remoteness etc.
:red_flag: Rylands v Fletcher (as a case):
'...the true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything to do mischief if it escapes...which must be capable of actually escaping...must be answerable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape'