Read v J Lyons & Co [1947] A.C. 156

In 1942, D entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Defence to manufacture high explosive shells for the government. To fulfil this agreement, D took control, management and operations of a government factory in Bedfordshire. C, an agent registered under the National Services Act, was told at the Labour Exchange that she must work as an inspector for the Armaments Inspection Department and inspect the filling of the shell cases. C was not given a statutory direction mandating her to act in this way, but it would have been served on her if she refused. On 31st August, an explosion occurred in the shell-filling shop. This injured C among others and resulted in one death. Despite there being no evidence of D being negligent in their operations, C sued D for damages for personal injury.

Could the inspector recover without proof of negligence when an explosion injured her inside the defendants' factory and nothing escaped beyond their control?

Finding for D, that without any proof of negligence on behalf of D or the shells escaping from a place D occupies controls, there was no cause of action on which C could succeed. The inherently dangerous nature of the shells did not impose strict liability on D. C was present in the factory pursuing a public duty, placing her in the same position as an invitee. D had the same responsibility to an invitee as an occupier. An occupier’s duties to an invitee have been analysed in many reported cases, but none of them suggest strict liability is one of them. That the work involved is a kind requiring special care imposes a high standard for the duty of care, but there is no reason for saying that the occupier is liable for resulting damage without any proof of negligence.

Rylands liability requires an escape from a place under the defendant's occupation or control to a place outside it. An explosion confined within the factory did not meet that requirement. Dangerous operations alone did not create the general strict liability asserted in Read.

Read identifies an essential boundary of Rylands: the rule concerns escape, not every accident involving a dangerous substance. The inspector's injury occurred within the controlled premises, and negligence had not been established. Later authority in Transco further confines the rule as a limited form of nuisance protecting property interests. A modern answer should consider appropriate negligence, occupiers' liability or statutory routes separately, rather than using the inherent danger of explosives to bypass their requirements.