Case on the custom of the realm lies against a man for damage done by a fire he has lighted in his field. D. acc. 1 Bl. Com. 431. Unless such damage was occasioned by the Act of God. A master is responsible for all acts dons by his servant in the course of his employment, though without particular directions.
Citations:
[1792] EngR 2684, (1792) 1 Ld Raym 264, (1792) 91 ER 1072 (B)
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Turberville v Stamp 1792
The defendant’s haystack spontaneously combusted and it was alleged that he had ‘wrongfully negligently and improperly kept his haystack so that it became liable to ignite’ and so be a danger to the claimant’s property. The jury were left to . .
See Also – Turberville v Stamp In BR 1792
An action on the case, founded upon the general custom of the realm, against the defendant, for negligently keeping his fire; and the plaintiff declared that the defendant in his close did light up a fire to burn the stubble, and ignem suum tam . .
Cited by:
See Also – Turberville v Stamp 1796
Action upon the case on the custom of the realm, for negligently keeping of his fire; declaring that the plaintiff was possessed of a close of heath ; that the defendant possessed of another close next adjoining ; and that the defendant tam . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.360896
