In the context of Rylands v Fletcher, what must be demonstrated about the activity causing the escape?

In the landmark case of Rylands v Fletcher, the doctrine established focuses on the liability that arises when a substance escapes from one property and causes damage to another. For a plaintiff to succeed in a claim under this doctrine, it is essential to demonstrate that the activity causing the escape was extraordinary and non-natural.

This concept is grounded in the idea that when an individual engages in activities that are not common or ordinary for the land, it puts them at a heightened duty to ensure that these activities do not lead to harm. An example might be storing large quantities of hazardous chemicals. If these substances escape and cause damage, the individual or entity conducting this unusual activity can be held liable because such a use of land is considered to carry a higher risk of causing damage—thus, they are responsible for ensuring the safety of the operation.

Additionally, the classification of an activity as "non-natural" underscores that it is not something that would typically be found or practiced within that environment or context, further reinforcing the emphasis on precaution and responsible behavior. This helps maintain a balance between individual rights and societal safety.

The options that revolve around customary practices or natural activities reflect premises that are not aligned with the thrust of Rylands v Fletcher, which specifically addresses the liabilities associated with more