Tort of Negligence: Time to Scrap Rylands v Fletcher

I think it's high time we stop teaching Rylands v Fletcher (1868) as a foundational case for tort of negligence. It's an anachronism that only serves to confuse students. The donkey and the reservoir are cute but outdated examples that don't reflect modern legal realities. Why should we burden ourselves with a case that's more suited to a Dickens novel than a law school? It's also a prime example of why so many students struggle to apply tort principles to real-life scenarios. In fact, it's more of a hindrance than a help. In today's CLAT PG and AILET PG curriculum, can't we just skip the nostalgic value and focus on more modern and applicable cases like Sturges v Bridgman (1879) or Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?