References: , [1841] EngR 1095, (1841) 3 Man & G 515, (1841) 133 ER 1246
Links: Commonlii
Case against a railway company for so carelessly and improperly managing and directing an engine on their railway by their servants, that sparks flew from the engine upon a stack of beans standing in an adjoining field, belonging to the plaintiff, whereby the stack was destroyed. A case stated for the opinion of the court, under the statute, alleged that the engines used upon the railway were such as were usually employed on railways, for the purpose of propelling the trains and carriages thereon ; and that the engine, from which the sparks that set fire to the stack in question flew, was used at the time in the ordinary manner, and for purposes authorised by the act of parliament incorporating the company.-Held,that the facts stated were not sufficient to enable the court to infer negligence on the part of the defendants, so as to justify the directing of the entry of a verdict for the plaintiff; but that they did not shew such an absence of negligence as to warrant the directing of the entry of a nonsuit ; and the special case was withdrawn in order that the parties might go on to trial.
Tindal CJ said: ‘It is contended on the part of the defendants, that the plaintiff should be nonsuited; but I am not prepared to say that the fact of the engine emitting sparks may not amount to negligence. On the other hand I cannot say that a verdict ought to be entered for the plaintiff. I think that the special case should be withdrawn, and that the parties should go on to trial. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, he must either shew some carelessness by the defendants, or lay facts before the jury from which it may be inferred.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .