Blackburn J said: ‘I take it that, since the case of Vaughan v Taff Vale Ry Co, which was expressly affirmed in Brand v Hammersmith Ry Co, it is clear that when a railway company is authorized by their Act of parliament to run engines on their line, and that cannot be done without their emitting sparks, the company are not responsible for injuries arising therefrom, unless there is some evidence of negligence on their part.’
Citations:
(1870-71) LR 6 CP 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Vaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company 20-Nov-1858
A wood adjoining the defendants’ railway was set alight and burned by sparks from the locomotives. On several previous occasions it had been set on fire, and the Company had paid for the damage. Evidence was given that the defendants had done . .
Appeal from – Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company 1869
Negligence requires duty to injured
Workmen, employed by the defendant railway company to cut the grass and trim hedges bordering the railway, placed the trimmings in heaps near the line, and allowed them to remain there for fourteen days, during very hot weather in the month of . .
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.
Negligence
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.512174