Discuss the implications of Rule of Strict/Absolute liability as prescribed in Rylands Vs. Fletcher.

In the past, all actions for environmental torts against companies and industries were governed by the principle of strict liability. Strict liability means liability without fault, i.e., without intention or negligence. In other words, the defendant is held liable without fault. Absolute liability for the escape of impounded waters was first established in England during the mid-nineteenth century in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 330. The rule was first stated by Blackburn, J. (Court of Exchequer) in the following words: "We think that that the rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God...... and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour, who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows to be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property". This passage of Blackburn's opinion established broad liability for land owners whose land development activities result in the unexpected release of a large volume of water. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence to say that the thing escaped without person's willful act, default or neglect or even with the excuse that he had no previous knowledge of its existence. The House of Lords, however, added a rider to the above statement stating that - this rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally established on the land or where the thing escaped due to an act of God or an act of stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority. American courts began dealing with Rylands, absolute liability soon after the House of Lords issued its Rylands opinion. The first American jurisdiction to apply the Rylands Doctrine was Massachusetts, where a court imposed absolute liability on a defendant who allowed filthy water to percolate into a neighbour's well. Shortly thereafter, Minnesota adopted Rylands absolute liability in a case involving the breach of an underground water tunnel.