 He then stated that "Rylands" was arguably a sub-set of nuisance, not an independent tort, and as such the factors which led him to including a test of foreseeability of harm in "Rylands" cases also imposed such a test on all nuisance cases.The decision in "Cambridge Water Co" made an immediate change to the law, for the first time requiring foreseeability of harm to be considered in cases brought under "Rylands v Fletcher" and the general tort of nuisance.It was also significant in implying that "Rylands" was not an independent tort, something later concluded in the "Transco" case.