Fletcher v. Rylands, 3 H. & C. 774, 159 Eng Rep 737 (Ex. 1865).

Case Summary Facts: Rylands (D) possessed a piece of property but did not have rights to the mines and veins of coal under the surface. Fletcher (P) possessed coal mines located near Rylands property. D constructed a reservoir on his property above an abandoned coal mine that was connected to Ps mines below the surface. The shafts of the abandoned mine below Ds property had been filled in with soil and D did not know or suspect that there was an abandoned mine below the surface. When the reservoir was filled, water flowed into Ps mines causing the mine to shut down. P sued D for damages and lost profits. Issue: Can a party be liable for trespass for damage caused to the land of another, if the damage is a result of a defect in the partys land, if the party did not know of the defect? Holding and Rule: No. There must be negligence to create a liability. If there is no negligence, the loss falls upon the damaged party. D was not liable for the damage cased to Ps land because there was no trespass. To be liable for trespass, the damage would have had to have been immediate. Since in this case the damage was consequential rather than immediate there was no trespass. D was not liable in this case because he was not aware of any damage to his land. Disposition: For D; no trespass.
Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895] [Tort negligence - duty of care - proving fault - malice not normally relevant] D owned land containing underground streams which fed C's (Bradford Corporation) waterworks. D began to sink shafts for the alleged purpose of draining certain beds of stone. The effect of Ds operations was to affect seriously the supply of water to appellants springs. The corporation alleged that defendant was not acting in good faith, but to compel them to purchase his land. Held: D has the right to divert or appropriate the water within his own land so as to deprive his neighbour of it. His right is the same whatever his motive may be, whether genuinely to improve his own land, or maliciously to injure his neighbour, or to induce his neighbour to buy him out. No use of property which would be legal if due to a proper motive can become illegal if it is prompted by a motive which is improper or even malicious.

Stephens v Myers (1830) CA

[Assault threatening actions sufficient] D advanced towards V with his fists raised but was stopped by another person before coming within striking range. Following an argument Held: It was enough that V was put in apprehension even though the battery (the actual striking) never occurred. Guilty

Colby v. Schmidt, 37 C.C.L.T. 1, 3,6 (B.C. Sup. Ct. 1986) (holding the defendant rugby player liable for an intentional blow to the plaintiff's head after the play); - p. hit sometime after no longer had rugby ball, damages awarded
- player does not assume any and all risks, there must be some realistic limits