The owners of a flax store situated near a railway, which had been set on fire by a spark from a passing engine, sued the railway company for damages, alleging that they had omitted to take proper precautions against the emission of sparks in not fitting the engine with a contrivance known as the ‘spark-arrester.’ The evidence showed that the engine in question was of a new type, to which the ‘spark-arrester’ was inapplicable, and that it was fitted with the best known means for preventing the emission of sparks available in engines of that class. It was not proved that the risk of communicating fire had been sensibly increased by the new method of construction.
Held (aff. the decision of the First Division) that the pursuers had failed to prove that the absence of the spark-arrester made the engine defective, or that the defenders were negligent in using such an engine, and accordingly that the defenders fell to be assoilzied.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Herschell), and Lord Watson, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Field
Citations:
[1893] UKHL 587, 30 SLR 587
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Negligence
Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.633295