Talk:Rylands v Fletcher

This article has it backwards

In the Rylands v Fletcher case Rylands is the plaintiff and Fletcher the defendant. Rylands was the mine owner who sued Fletcher the mill owner and reservoir builder. This is a basic mistake that someone should correct! (Unfortunately I do not have time to do it right now.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estehoi (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the report, that's not actually right. Here it is.

“ In November, 1861, Fletcher brought an action against Ryland & Horrocks, to recover damages for an injury caused to his mines by water overflowing into them from a reservoir which the Defendants had constructed. The declaration contained three counts, and each count alleged negligence on the part of the Defendants, but in this House the case was ultimately treated upon the principle of determining the relative rights of the parties independently of any question of personal negligence by the Defendants in the exercise of them. ”

Wikidea 17:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To make an actual useful contribution, what happens is that the final ruling was on an appeal from Rylands, which "inverted" the order, because it made Rylands the plaintiff (in the first two Courts, Fletcher had been the plaintiff). Circéus (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Additions

There's some good work here with a lot of effort. I'm not going to read all of this now, but in one subsection, I've made a number of changes to mistakes, a few legal, a few on grammar - and it would be well worth while going through carefully and checking the work, to improve it further. Moreover, OSCOLA should be used, because it is better, and it is better to use an English referencing system on an English case. Wikidea 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid to make changes because there are so many reversions in the history. BUT, I think that there's a pretty major sentence in the introduction that ought to be changed:

Fletcher brought a claim under nuisance, through which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas; while ruling in favour of Rylands, Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance.

I believe the claim was brought under negligence. This is importance. Simpson gets at this point several times in his article on the case (cited in the wiki entry), especially at pp 212 and 243. It's also clear in The Law Reports (1866). Secondly, I think the clause about Bramwell is unclear (“while ruling in favour of Rylands, Bramwell B, dissenting, argued”). If I weren't afraid of introducing changes that would automatically be reverted, I would replace that entire block quote with the following:

Fletcher brought a claim under negligence, through which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas. The majority ruled in favour of Rylands; however, Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance.

I'm still not especially happy with “through which the case eventually went...”. PSnP (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make those changes; the entry is fairly stable now. Ironholds (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Subtractions

The judgments should not be cut down in favour of a one or two line summary of the judges names and the outcome. This is not enough, and a reason why a blanket replacement of pages that you've worked on alone it not appropriate, nor in the spirit of Wikipedia, and should be avoided in future. Wikidea 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This explains why such debates and arguments have so far ended up with the articles become Good Articles, and you giving up on them in a huff.

1. The reference system used is perfectly acceptable; there is no requirement for OSCOLA
2. Your changes and reversions violate policy in multiple ways
3. Your alterations also use completely nonstandard headings and needlessly collect in some places and break up in others the material. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about your other work, I'm afraid. What exactly are the policy violations you're talking about? And why do you insist on trying to substitute your page for the existing material without any prior discussion? Reverting is not helpful. Wikidea 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the existing material was almost entirely unreferenced? And please read WP:BRD. On the subject of other work; come on. Surely Pepper v Hart rings a bell. Re the policy violations, you've got unreferenced quotes, mass quotes and nonstandard headings, all style and sourcing violations. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no violation, and BRD does not allow people to own pages or fail to work collaboratively. Wikidea 14:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The headings and the reference for Lord Cairns' quote should be as you suggested. Those were good suggestions - except for the ill tempered tone. All your work is there - except with one paragraph corrected for its grammar, as I said in the summary. Please don't revert again, cheers. Wikidea 14:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have again reverted you; see WP:BRD. BRD was not referenced to allow me to "own pages or fail to work collaboratively". You have a problem with my version. The appropriate response is to discuss it, not continually mess with it when it is clear there is no consensus to do so. Your new version, while a large improvement on previous tweaks and following WP:MOSLAW, contained massive quotes as usual (please note, by the way, that citations are normally provided at the end of a quote rather than the beginning). Is there any way you could cut them down to something more pertinent? The only thing we really need from the Exchequer Chamber is the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  Can I suggest (before this gets any more heated) - the main issue is over the quotes. May I ask your permission to request that User:Bencherlite comes in for a third opinion? He's legally knowledgeable and an experienced content editor, so he's the most appropriate person I can think of for this. In addition, if we work that out I'll put in a GAN, which should fix any grammar or factual issues. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the third time you've reverted. If you don't own the page, and it's just about the quote, you have no reason to revert. You have a reason to be collaborative, build, not revert, and not reject other people's changes just because it didn't fit your pre-prepared work. Learn to do that first. Wikidea 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and your summary here "discuss BEFORE additional edits" is a piece of advice you should take, Dr BRD. Wikidea 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could you please consider my suggestion? Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not reverting again. We've been through quotations of judgments before. An excerpt from the judgment is useful to state what the law is - this is important so that readers can understand what was actually said in the case, and even more useful when there is no such available passage elsewhere on the web. If readers don't want to read a blockquote, then they can just skip over it. It's not a substitute for a clear, concise summary of the decision, but it's important. Why don't you make the changes that you feel are appropriate now - including if you think the blockquotes are too long, and then why don't we discuss - that way you can move forward, because it'd be nice to get you another GA on your list. Wikidea 18:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove Cairns's judgment; it is, essentially, useless, not adding anything to the Rule. The reason I suggest getting a third party to intervene is to avoid the back-and-forth we've had going on. You seem to be misunderstanding my motives somewhat, but that is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, go ahead and make the edits you want then. Wikidea 19:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done some of them. Additional problems with your version:

1. "This ruling relied on the liability for damages to land available through the tort of chattel trespass and the tort of nuisance, as well as the in scienter action, injury by a domesticated animal known to have a disposition to injure. Rylands appealed." is completely unreferenced.
2. The use of raw, 19th century case citations for referencing is imprecise, useless to the layman and difficult for the average person to find.
3. Your needless change to the citation style should also be remedied; you've not only changed it without any good reason, but you've also only done it to a third of the article, which leaves things confused and in (additional) violation of the manual of style.

I'll wait on you to fix these for a bit, since (1) isn't something I can necessarily reference, (2) is something I assume you'll want to discuss and (3) - you broke it, you fix it (the discussion principle probably also applies). Ironholds (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good. Wikidea 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

From your edits, I see you're misunderstanding; the use of "p." is to be maintained throughout. Wikipedia:Manual of Style provides that the original reference style is that which should be used, uniformly, and in future versions. Since the previous version contained a total of no third-party sources, this style is the original one for MOS's sake. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you just drop the self righteous tone please? The original style, before your additions - which again, are welcome - was in fact OSCOLA and so following that the p. should go. I use OSCOLA because it's neater, and it's English, and the journals and judges in England follow it. Wikidea 21:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Except it's highly confusing for the layman. See WP:MOSLAW on the nature of law articles. Ironholds (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure people will know what the number refers to. Wikidea 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality

I'd just like to add, this page still needs some work, in correcting grammar, and making the summary of the judgments concise and useful, and checking for errors in the discussion of its significance inserted by Ironholds. There's a way to go, but it's a good improvement. Wikidea 14:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just noticed one thing, - there's a picture of Lord Bingham, saying he was in Cambridge Water, but back then he was still in the Court of Appeal. Wikidea 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  My bad; now fixed. No idea how that got in there. Ironholds (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My two cents, the article looks fine, I would only suggest the usual, that whoever made most of the edits regarding the inapplicability of Rylands v. Fletcher, or whomever claims most of the page, please consider adding a touch more text expanding positive uses of the case and perhaps make the conclusory statements regarding the case's inapplicability more neutral. I just scanned the article and it reads like it is more concerned with eradicating Rylands from common use and the point of Wikipedia should be to educate, not insert a judgment (even though it is a judgment). I am aware this is not law review, it's an online encyclopedia. I appreciated the long quotations and the actual description of events themselves, I just get a general sense that the parts criticizing the case are piling on, not only doing so to convey information. There may be an over-reliance on certain sources that tend towards one view or the other. It should be the goal of anyone doing something as difficult as making a page for a case on Wiki to be as value-neutral as possible, and I would go out of my way and throw on a POV Check or Unbalanced template, but this is enough!. . .Nothing's perfect. Keep up the good work! W. Stephen Lush 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlush2 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia adheres to Neutral Point of View policies; this isn't giving both sides equal weight, it's giving each side weight equal to the strength of sources it can draw on. Australia has thrown the doctrine out. American states have thrown the doctrine out. Singapore has barely saved it, England and Wales has relegated it, and Scotland itself regrets that the law ever came onto the books. The reason it appears to be biased one way is because the sources and facts are. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So, I'm just going to go through the "significance" tract and write up the problems here as I see them, and make some of the smaller changes. You're welcome to do what you like.

• "The case had almost identical facts to Rylands, but strict liability was never even considered." - no, Vaughan v Menlove did not have identical facts, or even facts that were that similar, because it was a burning haystack. This paragraph is generally a bit confusing: it's making a simpler point that in the 19th century, Rylands strict liability for dangerous behaviour was a doctrinal shift from negligence, but I'm not sure it's so clear.
• The "assessment" paragraph is one sided, and not representative of the range of views. Also, the citations of the New Hampshire Court and the HK law journal are not particularly weighty or influential.
• I'm deleting the following, because it's a significant misunderstanding. The true result of Cambridge Water is that there is a remoteness limit on damages for Rylands type liability, but foreseeability of harm is not a requirement of liability - only a cap on quantum.

“ In Transco and Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc, the English judiciary confirmed that forseeability of harm is a requirement; "it must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised, or judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place or time, or ought reasonable to have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape, however unlikely an escape may have been thought to be". ”

• In the following para, I've changed the word for Lord Goff's opinion from "decided" to "opined", because it's just an opinion.
• I'm not sure this is anything different from before: my understanding is Lord Blackburn thought it was always a part of nuisance: "and that rather than being an independent tort it should be instead considered a sub-tort of nuisance. "
• I have deleted parts of this para where it's too wordy. "The rejection of Rylands was further considered in Transco." ... "Despite this, Rylands remains valid in England and Wales. While the House of Lords stated that i"
• The following para about Nolan's views sound sort of essayish, and don't seem to serve much purpose under the heading of "development" of the law.
• I've removed some of the excessive use of semi colons.
• The following sections (brings, collects, keeps, etc) sort of come out of nowhere. It seems it ought to be a separate heading. The "developments" section compares to the ones below on the US and Australia. The section on the US, is, of course, incredibly small for the widespread application of Rylands in 50 states' laws.

1. If you know of additional citations, provide them. Saying that it is one-sided because it doesn't show both opinions in an equal light is not necessarily incorrect.
2. "It is now a sub-tort, rather than an independent tort, they have confirmed that it will be allowed to remain" - incredibly clumsy sentence.
3. Feel free to expand the section on the US should you have reliable, third-party sources with which to do so. Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The facts set out in this Wikipedia entry are incorrect. John Rylands owned the mill. Fletcher's mines were flooded. The Wikipedia entry has it back to front. -- 128.240.225.19 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

To correct the problem, references to 'Rylands' and 'Fletcher' will need to be interchanged in the first paragraph, and also in the section 'Facts'. The names are given correctly in the rest of the entry. -- 128.240.225.19 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This article really needs to be corrected. Even according to the references (Simpson, 1982) they cite themselves, the names of the involved parties are in reverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.233.12 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References