 In the original judgment in "Rylands", the judge had stated that it covered "anything "likely" to do mischief if it escapes", and that liability should be to "answer for the natural and "anticipated" consequences"; this wording implies that he intended for "knowledge to be a prerequisite for liability".Goff's judgment made several significant and immediate changes to the law.First, it was the first decision which imposed a requirement of foreseeability of harm to cases brought under "Rylands v Fletcher"; "it must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised, or judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place or time, or ought reasonably to have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape, however unlikely an escape may have been thought to be".