Can Inco be held liable under Rylands v Fletcher?

In our view, actual, substantial, physical damage to the land in the context of this case refers to nickel levels that at least posed some risk to the health or well-being of the residents of those properties. Evidence that the existence of the nickel particles in the soil generated concerns about potential health risks does not, in our view, amount to evidence that the presence of the particles in the soil caused actual, substantial harm or damage to the property. The claimants failed to establish actual, substantial, physical damage to their properties as a result of the nickel particles becoming part of the soil. Without actual, substantial, physical harm, the nuisance claim as framed by the claimants could not succeed. (B) Did the trial judge err in holding Inco liable under Rylands v. Fletcher? (i) Introduction