What principle is highlighted in Rylands v Fletcher regarding the liability for escape?

The principle highlighted in Rylands v Fletcher regarding liability for escape centers on the requirement that an "escape" must occur in order to establish the defendant's liability. This landmark case articulated the rule that if a person brings something harmful onto their property, and that thing escapes and causes damage, the person may be held liable for that damage, regardless of the precautions taken or the intent behind bringing the item onto the property.

In this context, "escape" signifies the unauthorized departure of a substance or hazard from its normal containment, leading to a risk of harm to others. The court emphasized that liability stems from the fact that this escape was a proximate cause of the harm suffered, reinforcing the accountability of individuals for the potential risks associated with their actions.

While the concepts of intent and foreseeability are important in tort law, the Rylands v Fletcher doctrine is particularly focused on the occurrence of an escape and the resultant harm rather than the defendant's intentions or what they could have anticipated. Thus, the notion that an escape must happen is fundamental to establishing liability under this principle, making it central to the case's legal framework.