Court case(1876) 2 Ex D 1

The defendant owned land on which there were artificial ornamental lakes, formed many years earlier by damming a natural stream. The embankments and weirs were well constructed and sufficient for all ordinary rainfall. An extraordinary rainfall occurred, described by witnesses as the heaviest within human memory; the stream rose, the embankments gave way, and the rush of water swept away four county bridges downstream. The plaintiff, the county surveyor, sued on behalf of the county for the loss of the bridges, relying on the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

The jury found that the defendant had not been negligent and that the rainfall was so great that it could not reasonably have been anticipated. On those findings the Court of Exchequer and, on appeal, the Court of Appeal held the defendant not liable. Mellish LJ, delivering the judgment, said that the defendant had not brought the water on her land in a way that made her an insurer against an act of nature that could not reasonably be anticipated. The escape was caused by an act of God, which Blackburn J in Rylands v. Fletcher had recognised as an excuse; a person is not liable for the consequences of an extraordinary natural event which no human foresight could provide against.