If the rules in Rylands v Fletcher are to be used in the way Blackburn J intented, should the 'non-natural' use requirement be clearly defined or abandoned?

The principles of tort demonstrate that generally it must be shown that a wrongful act was committed intentionally or negligently . The rule in Rylands V Fletcher falls within the doctrine of strict liability, removing the need for fault. For one to justify strict liability there is a need to identify its aims . Case law identifies a turbulent history, especially in relation to ‘non-natural’ use. The Victorian era is a fine example . Originally a loyal advocate of the principle, the Victorians then demonstrated a large degree of distance. What has emerged is that when judging the requirement of ‘non-natural’ use, in relation to Blackburn J’s formulation, ‘socio-economic and philosophical trends of the day’ must be considered . For example, the closer integration of the UK with Europe has suggested the introduction of statutory authority as a measure of resolving issues associated with Rylands. On the other hand, the common law is suggesting a merger of Rylands principles ...