{"references": ["The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts: Liability for Physical Harm (Basic Principles), Tentative Draft No. 1, March 28, 2001.", "Maria Lubomira Kubica, \"Conclusions\", El riesgo y la responsabilidad objetiva, p. 783-784, unpublished doctoral thesis, available on http://dugi-doc.udg.edu/bitstream/handle/10256/11812/tmlk1de1.pdf?sequence=1 (cd: 26.04.2016).", "Tyrrell Hulston and Francis Joseph Coltman, English Reports, Full Reprint. (1220-1865), vol. 159- Exchequer, p. 737-748.", "A.W. Brian Simpson, \"Legal Liability for Bursting Reservoirs: The Historical Context of Rylands v. Fletcher\", J. Legal Stud. N\u00ba 13, (1984), p. 209- 264.", "A.W. Brian Simpson, \"Bursting Reservoirs and Rylands and Horrocks v. Fletcher\", in Leading Cases in the Common Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996, p. 195-226,", "Rylands v. Fletcher, 159 Eng. Rep. 737, (Ex. 1865).", "Fletcher v. Rylands (1865) 3 Hurlston & Coltman's Exchequer Reports (H&C), 159 Eng. Rep. 737.", "W. Page Keeton, Dan D. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, David G. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5\u00aa ed., West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1984.", "John Houston Merrill, The American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Edward Thompson Company, New York, 1891.\n[10]\tDan D. Dobbs, The Law of Torts, West Group, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2000.\n[11]\tWilliam V. H. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, ed. 16\u00aa, Thomson Sweet Maxwell, London, 2006.\n[12]\tBasil S. Markesinis and Simon F. Deakin, Tort Law, ed. 6\u00aa, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2008.\n[13]\tBrown v. Kendall, 60 Mass. 292 (1850).\n[14]\tDonoghue v. Stevenson 1932 SC(HL) 31.\n[15]\tPercy Henry Winfield, \"The History of Negligence in the Law of Torts\", LQR nr 42, 1926, p. 184ff.\n[16]\tWolfgang Gaston Friedmann, \"Social Insurance and the Principles of Tort Liability\", Harv. L. Rev., nr. 63, 1949, p. 243ff.\n[17]\tCambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Leather plc (1994) 2 WLR 53.\n[18]\tJohn G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 9th ed., The Law Book Company Limited, Sydney, 1998.\n[19]\tMarc S. Franklin, Robert L. Rabin, Michael D. Green, Tort Law and Alternatives, Foundation Press, Thomson West, New York, 2006.\n[20]\tThe American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts.\n[21]\tChristian von BAR, The Common European Law of Torts, vol. II, Damage and Damages, Liability for and without Personal Misconduct, Causality, and Defences, (repr.), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2005.\n[22]\tFletcher v. Rylands, 1 L.R.-Ex.265.\n[23]\tKen Oliphant, \"Rylands v. Fletcher and the Emergence of Enterprise Liability\", in Helmut Koziol/ Barbara Steininger (ed.), Tort and Insurance Law Year Book, European Tort Law 2004, Springer, Wien New York, 2005, pp. 81-120.\n[24]\tF. H. Newark, \"Non-natural user and Rylands v. Fletcher\", Mod. L. Rev., vol. 24, 1961, p. 557- 571.\n[25]\tF. H. Newark, \"Boundaries of Nuisance\", LQR, nr. 65, 1949, p.480- 490,\n[26]\tRylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330.\n[27]\tJed Handelsman Shugerman, \"The Floodgates of Strict Liability: Bursting Reservoirs and the Adoption of Fletcher v. Rylands in the Gilded Age\", Yale L.J., nr 110, 2000, p. 333-378.\n[28]\tWilliam Teulon Swam Stallybrass, \"Dangerous Things and the Non-Natural User of Land\", CLJ vol. 3, 1929, pp. 376-397.\n[29]\tSuzanne Galand-Carval, \"France\" in Bernard A. Koch/Helmut Koziol (eds), Unification of Tort Law. Strict Liability, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York, 2002.\n[30]\tCees van Dam, European Tort Law, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007.\n[31]\tAndrew J. Waite, \"Deconstructing the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher\", JEL, vol. 18, n\u00ba 3, 2006, p. 423-442.\n[32]\tFrancis H. Bohlen, \"The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher\", U. Pa. L.Rev. nr\u00ba 59, 1911, p. 298-326, .\n[33]\tRobert Thomas Molloy, \"Fletcher v. Rylands- A Reexamination of Juristic Origins\", U.Chi.L.Rev. nr\u00ba 9, 1941, p. 266-292.\n[34]\tRoscoe Pound, Interpretations of Legal History, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1967.\n[35]\tLeon Green, \"Tort Law Public Law in Disguise\", Texas LR, nr\u00ba. 38, 1959, p. 257-269.\n[36]\tWilliam Lloyd Prosser, \"The principle of Rylands v. Fletcher\", in Selected Topics on the Law of Torts: Five Lectures Delivered at the University of Michigan February 2,3,4,5 y 6 of 1953, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Law School, 1954, p. 134-149.\n[37]\tJohn Murphy, \"The Merits of Rylands v. Fletcher\", Oxf. J. Leg. Stud., vol. 24, n\u00ba 4, 2004, p.643-669.\n[38]\tThe Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (Liability for Escape of Oil and Other Noxious Substances from Sea Vessels). \n[39]\tThe Water Industry Act 1991, \u00a7 209 (Civil Liability of Undertakers for Escape of Water).\n[40]\tThe Water Industry Act 1991, \u00a748A added in April 2005 (Liability of those Abstracting Water from Underground Strata or Inland Waters).\n[41]\tEnvironmental Protection Act 1990, \u00a7 73(6) (Liability for Damage Caused by Waste Deposited in or on Land).\n[42]\tThe Reservoirs Act 1975 (strict liability for water escaping from reservoirs which hold at least 25,000 m3 above ground).\n[43]\t\u00a7 14 of the Gas Act 1965 (Strict Liability for Damage Done by the Escape of Gas from Underground Stores or Connected Boreholes for Public Gas Transporters).\n[44]\tthe Nuclear Installations Act 1965, \u00a7 7 (Strict Liability of Licensed Nuclear Installation Operators for any Personal Injury or Damage to Property Resulting from Radioactive, Toxic, Explosive and Other Hazardous Properties of Nuclear Operations).\n[45]\tThe Fire Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774.\n[46]\tKeith Stanton, Paul Harris Skidmore, Michael Harris and Jones Wright, Statutory Torts, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2003.\n[47]\tTransco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) UKHL 61, (2004) 2 AC 1.\n[48]\tEdward White, \"The American Law Institute and the Triumph of Modernist Jurisprudence\", Law & Hist. Rev., n\u00ba 15, p. 1- 47.\n[49]\tDonald P. Nolan, \"The distinctiveness of Rylands v. Fletcher\", LQR, n\u00b0 121, 2005, p. 421-451.\n[50]\tFrederick Pollock, in The Law of Torts, 14th ed., 1939.\n[51]\tRoderick Bagshaw, \"Rylands Confined, LQR, vol.120, July 2004, p. 388-392.\n[52]\tGerry Cross, \"Does only the Carless Polluter Pay?- A Fresh Examination of the Nature of Private Nuisance\", LQR , n\u00ba 111, 1995, p. 445-474.\n[53]\tRead v. Lyons & Co Ltd (1947) AC 156.\n[54]\tCambridge Water Co Ltd v. Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) AC 264.\n[55]\tTransco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) UKHL 61.\n[56]\tThe first instance decision in Marcic v. Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2002) QB 9, para29.\n[57]\tColour Quest Ltd and others v Total Downstream UK plc and others (2009) EWHC 540 (Comm).\n[58]\tJohnston v. B.G.W Property Developments Ltd (2002) EWHC 1131 (TCC); (2002) 3All ER 574.\n[59]\tRe-Source American International Ltd v. Platt Service Ltd (2003) EWHC 1142 (TCC).\n[60]\tPercy Henry Winfield, \"The History of Negligence in the Law of Torts\", LQR nr 42, 1926, p. 184 and ff.\n[61]\tWilliam L. Prosser, \"Nuisance Without Fault\", Texas LR., n\u00ba20,1942, p. 399 and ff.\n[62]\tBamford v. Turley (1862) 3 Best and Smith Reports (B&S) 62, 122 ER 25.\n[63]\tBrand v. Hammersmith and City Railway Co. (1867) LR 2 QB 223.\n[64]\tA.W. Brian Simpson, Victorian Judges and the Problem of Social Cost: Tipping v. St Helen's Smelting Company\", in Leading Cases in the Common Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996, p. 174-194.\n[65]\tRobert W. Gordon, \"Simpson's Leading Cases\", Mich. L. Rev., n\u00ba 95,1997, p. 2044-2052.\n[66]\tRichard Epstein, \"For a Bramwell Revival\", Am. J. Leg. Hist. n\u00ba38, 1994, p. 246-287.\n[67]\tPercy Henry Winfield, \"Nuisance as a Tort\", CLJ, nr\u00ba 4, (1930-1932), p. 189 and ff. \n[68]\tDavid Ibbetson, An Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations, Oxford, OUP, 1999.\n[69]\tM.J. Prichard, \"Trespass, Case and the Rule in Whiliams v. Holland\", CLJ, 1964, p. 234 ff.\n[70]\tJohn Hamilton Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th ed., Butterworths, London, 2002.\n[71]\tBrook v. Bool (1928) 2 KB 578.\n[72]\tHoneywill v. Larkin Bros (1934) 1 KB 191.\n[73]\tThe Pass of Ballater (1942) P 112; p. 436.\n[74]\tKumaralingam Amirthalingam, \"Rylands Lives\", CLJ, vol. 63, nr\u00ba2, june 2004, p. 273-276.\n[75]\tLawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution 1529-1642, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1972,.\n[76]\tVirginia E. Nolan/ Edmund Ursin, \"The revitalization of Hazardous Activity Strict Liability, N.C. L. Rev. nr. 65, pp. 257-314.\n[77]\tGarry T. Schwartz, \"Rylands v. Fletcher, Negligence and Strict Liability\" in Peter Cane and Jane Stapleton (eds), Essays in Celebration of John Fleming, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998.\n[78]\tGaffiney's Estate, 23 A. 163 (Pa. 1892).\n[79]\t Overbeck v. Overbeck, 25 A. 646 (Pa. 1893).\n[80]\tRee's Estate, 92 A. 126, 127 (Pa. 1914).\n[81]\tNote, \"The Law of Bursting Reservoirs\", Am. L. Rev. n\u00fam. 23, 1889, pp. 643-648."]}

The paper reveals the birth and evolution of the British precedent Rylands v. Fletcher that, once adopted on the other side of the Ocean (in United States), gave rise to a general clause of liability for abnormally dangerous activities recognized by the §20 of the American Restatements of the Law Third, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. The main goal of the paper was to analyze the development of the legal doctrine and of the case law posterior to the precedent together with the intent of the British judicature to leapfrog from the traditional rule contained in Rylands v. Fletcher to a general clause similar to that introduced in the United States and recently also on the European level. As it is well known, within the scope of tort law two different initiatives compete with the aim of harmonizing the European laws: European Group on Tort Law with its Principles of European Tort Law (hereinafter PETL) in which article 5:101 sets forth a general clause for strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities and Study Group on European Civil Code with its Common Frame of Reference (CFR) which promotes rather ad hoc model of listing out determined cases of strict liability. Very narrow application scope of the art. 5:101 PETL, restricted only to abnormally dangerous activities, stays in opposition to very broad spectrum of strict liability cases governed by the CFR. The former is a perfect example of a general clause that offers a minimum and basic standard, possibly acceptable also in those countries in which, like in the United Kingdom, this regime of liability is completely marginalized.