What does "bring onto the land" imply in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?

In the context of Rylands v Fletcher, the phrase "bring onto the land" primarily refers to introducing a substance or item that is not typically found in that particular environment or situation, particularly those that can be considered hazardous or damaging. This principle is core to the doctrine, which holds a person strictly liable for damages resulting from a non-natural use of their land when they bring something onto it that could pose a risk to others or to neighboring properties.

In this context, "matter that cannot be found in nature" accurately captures the essence of the rule, as it highlights that the liability arises from introducing something potentially harmful or unnatural. The case emphasizes liability for the consequences of certain activities or materials that are not ordinarily present in that environment, thereby creating an increased risk of harm.

The other choices do not align as well with the core principles established in Rylands v Fletcher. For example, "items that can exist naturally" would imply a lack of liability since natural items wouldn’t typically create a risk of harm. "Objects that can be easily transported" and "only chemical substances" also narrow the focus too much, as the ruling is concerned with any non-natural use or hazardous materials, not limited by their mode of transport or classification as chemicals.