The defendant railway company ran steam locomotives on its railway. Although it had taken all reasonable precautions against the emission of sparks from the engine, nevertheless sparks from the engine set the plaintiff’s haystack alight and burned down his barn.
Held: The claim succeeded. The thing of the dangerous nature that the railway company had brought onto its land was the locomotive engine with the deliberately kindled fire.
Blackburn J said: ‘The general rule of common law is correctly given in Fletcher v Rylands, that when a man brings or uses a thing of a dangerous nature on his own land, he must keep it in at his own peril; and is liable for the consequences if it escapes and does injury to his neighbour. Here the defendants were using a locomotive engine with no express parliamentary powers making lawful that use, and they are therefore at common law bound to keep the engines from doing injury, and if the sparks escape and cause damage, the defendants are liable for the consequences, though no actual negligence be shewn on their part.’
Lush J said: ‘I can see nothing in this statute to licence the company to use locomotive engines. In the absence of this licence the company are left to their liabilities at common law: that is, if they use a highly dangerous machine, they must do so at the peril of the consequences if it cause injury to others.’
Judges:
Blackburn and Lush JJ
Citations:
(1867-68) LR 3 QB 733
Statutes:
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 86
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.512179