Chapter XXXII: Section III: Dangerous Use of Land (1)

FLETCHER _v._ RYLANDS
IN THE EXCHEQUER, MAY 5, 1865.
_Reported in 3 Hurlstone & Coltman, 774._

FLETCHER _v._ RYLANDS
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, MAY 14, 1866.
_Reported in Law Reports, 1 Exchequer, 265._

RYLANDS _v._ FLETCHER
IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 17, 1868.
_Reported in Law Reports, 3 House of Lords, 330._

In November, 1861, Fletcher brought an action against Rylands and Horrocks to recover damages for an injury caused to his mines by water flowing into them from a reservoir which defendants had constructed. The declaration (set out in L. R. 1 Exch. 265, 266) contained three counts, each count alleging negligence on the part of the defendants. The case came on for trial at the Liverpool Summer Assizes, 1862, when a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, subject to an award to be thereafter made by an arbitrator. Subsequently the arbitrator was directed, instead of making an award, to state a special case for the consideration of the Court of Exchequer.[286]

The material facts in the special case stated by the arbitrator were as follows:—

Fletcher, under a lease from Lord Wilton, and under arrangements with other landowners, was working coal mines under certain lands. He had worked the mines up to a spot where he came upon old horizontal passages of disused mines, and also upon vertical shafts which seemed filled with marl and rubbish.

Rylands and Horrocks owned a mill standing on land near that under which Fletcher’s mines were worked. With permission of Lord Wilton, they constructed on Lord Wilton’s land a reservoir to supply water to their mill. They employed a competent engineer and competent contractors to construct the reservoir. It was not known to Rylands and Horrocks, nor to any of the persons employed by them, that any coal had ever been worked under or near the site of the reservoir; but in point of fact the coal under the site of the reservoir had been partially worked at some time or other beyond living memory, and there were old coal workings under the site of the reservoir communicating by means of other and intervening old underground workings with the recent workings of Fletcher.

In the course of constructing and excavating for the bed of the said reservoir, five old shafts, running vertically downwards, were met with in the portion of land selected for the site of the said reservoir. At the time they were so met with the sides or walls of at least three of them were constructed of timber, and were still in existence, but the shafts themselves were filled up with marl, or soil of the same kind as the marl or soil which immediately surrounded them, and it was not known to, or suspected by, the defendants, or any of the persons employed by them in or about the planning or constructing of the said reservoir, that they were (as they afterwards proved to be) shafts which had been made for the purpose of getting the coal under the land in which the said reservoir was made, or that they led down to coal workings under the site of the said reservoir.

For the selection of the site of the said reservoir, and for the planning and constructing thereof, it was necessary that the defendants should employ an engineer and contractors, and they did employ for those purposes a competent engineer and competent contractors, by and under whom the said site was selected and the said reservoir was planned and constructed, and on the part of the defendants themselves there was no personal negligence or default whatever in or about or in relation to the selection of the said site, or in or about the planning or construction of the said reservoir; but in point of fact reasonable and proper care and skill were not exercised by or on the part of the persons so employed by them, with reference to the shafts so met with as aforesaid, to provide for the sufficiency of the said reservoir to bear the pressure of water which, when filled to the height proposed, it would have to bear.

The said reservoir was completed about the beginning of December, 1860, when the defendants caused the same to be partially filled with water, and on the morning of the 11th December in the same year, whilst the reservoir was so partially filled, one of the shafts which had been so met with as aforesaid gave way and burst downwards; in consequence of which the water of the reservoir flowed into the old workings underneath, and by means of the underground communications so then existing between those old coal workings and the plaintiff’s coal workings in the plaintiff’s colliery, as above described, large quantities of the water so flowing from the said reservoir as aforesaid found their way into the said coal workings in the plaintiff’s colliery, and by reason thereof the said colliery became and was flooded, and the working thereof was obliged to be and was for a time necessarily suspended.

The question for the opinion of the Court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendants by reason of the matters thus stated by the arbitrator.

The Court of Exchequer (POLLOCK, C. B., and MARTIN, B., concurring; BRAMWELL, B., dissenting) gave judgment for defendants.

* * * * *

Plaintiff brought error in the Exchequer Chamber.

* * * * *

May 14, 1866. The judgment of the Court (WILLES, BLACKBURN, KEATING, MELLOR, MONTAGUE SMITH, and LUSH, JJ.) was delivered by

BLACKBURN, J. This was a special case stated by an arbitrator, under an order of _nisi prius_, in which the question for the Court is stated to be, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any and, if any, what damages from the defendants by reason of the matters thereinbefore stated.

In the Court of Exchequer, the Chief Baron and Martin, B., were of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover at all, Bramwell, B., being of a different opinion. The judgment in the Exchequer was consequently given for the defendants, in conformity with the opinion of the majority of the Court. The only question argued before us was whether this judgment was right, nothing being said about the measure of damages in case the plaintiff should be held entitled to recover. We have come to the conclusion that the opinion of Bramwell, B., was right, and that the answer to the question should be that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendants by reason of the matters stated in the case, and consequently that the judgment below should be reversed, but we cannot at present say to what damages the plaintiff is entitled.

It appears from the statement in the case that the plaintiff was damaged by his property being flooded by water which, without any fault on his part, broke out of a reservoir constructed on the defendants’ land by the defendants’ orders, and maintained by the defendants.

It appears from the statement in the case [see pp. 267–268], that the coal under the defendants’ land had, at some remote period, been worked out; but this was unknown at the time when the defendants gave directions to erect the reservoir, and the water in the reservoir would not have escaped from the defendants’ land, and no mischief would have been done to the plaintiff, but for this latent defect in the defendants’ subsoil. And it further appears [see pp. 268–269] that the defendants selected competent engineers and contractors to make their reservoir, and themselves personally continued in total ignorance of what we have called the latent defect in the subsoil; but that these persons employed by them in the course of the work became aware of the existence of the ancient shafts filled up with soil, though they did not know or suspect that they were shafts communicating with old workings.

It is found that the defendants, personally, were free from all blame, but that in fact proper care and skill was not used by the persons employed by them to provide for the sufficiency of the reservoir with reference to these shafts. The consequence was that the reservoir when filled with water burst into the shafts, the water flowed down through them into the old workings, and thence into the plaintiff’s mine, and there did the mischief.

The plaintiff, though free from all blame on his part, must bear the loss, unless he can establish that it was the consequence of some default for which the defendants are responsible. The question of law therefore arises, what is the obligation which the law casts on a person who, like the defendants, lawfully brings on his land something which, though harmless whilst it remains there, will naturally do mischief if it escape out of his land. It is agreed on all hands that he must take care to keep in that which he has brought on the land and keeps there, in order that it may not escape and damage his neighbors; but the question arises whether the duty which the law casts upon him, under such circumstances, is an absolute duty to keep it in at his peril, or is, as the majority of the Court of Exchequer have thought, merely a duty to take all reasonable and prudent precautions in order to keep it in, but no more. If the first be the law, the person who has brought on his land and kept there something dangerous, and failed to keep it in, is responsible for all the natural consequences of its escape. If the second be the limit of his duty, he would not be answerable except on proof of negligence, and consequently would not be answerable for escape arising from any latent defect which ordinary prudence and skill could not detect.

Supposing the second to be the correct view of the law, a further question arises subsidiary to the first, viz., whether the defendants are not so far identified with the contractors whom they employed as to be responsible for the consequences of their want of care and skill in making the reservoir in fact insufficient with reference to the old shafts, of the existence of which they were aware, though they had not ascertained where the shafts went to.

We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is _prima facie_ answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of _vis major_, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbor, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbor’s reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbor’s privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapors of his neighbor’s alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbor, who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows to be mischievous if it gets on his neighbor’s, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there, so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequences. And upon authority, this we think is established to be the law, whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches.

The case that has most commonly occurred and which is most frequently to be found in the books is as to the obligation of the owner of cattle which he has brought on his land to prevent their escaping and doing mischief. The law as to them seems to be perfectly settled from early times; the owner must keep them in at his peril, or he will be answerable for the natural consequences of their escape; that is, with regard to tame beasts, for the grass they eat and trample upon, though not for any injury to the person of others, for our ancestors have settled that it is not the general nature of horses to kick, or bulls to gore; but if the owner knows that the beast has a vicious propensity to attack man, he will be answerable for that too.

As early as the Year Book, 20 Ed. 4, 11, placitum 10, Brian, C. J., lays down the doctrine in terms very much resembling those used by Lord Holt in Tenant _v._ Goldwin, 2 Ld. Raym. 1089, 1 Salk. 360, which will be referred to afterwards. It was trespass with cattle. Plea, that the defendant’s land adjoined a place where defendant had common, that the cattle strayed from the common, and defendant drove them back as soon as he could. It was held a bad plea. Brian, C. J., says: “It behoves him to use his common so that he shall do no hurt to another man, and if the land in which he has common be not enclosed, it behoves him to keep the beasts in the common and out of the land of any other.” He adds, when it was proposed to amend by pleading that they were driven out of the common by dogs, that although that might give a right of action against the master of the dogs, it was no defence to the action of trespass by the person on whose land the cattle went. In the recent case of Cox _v._ Burbidge, 13 C. B. N. S. 438, 32 L. J. C. P. 89, Williams, J., says: “I apprehend the general rule of law to be perfectly plain. If I am the owner of an animal in which by law the right of property can exist, I am bound to take care that it does not stray into the land of my neighbor, and I am liable for any trespass it may commit, and for the ordinary consequences of that trespass. Whether or not the escape of the animal is due to my negligence is altogether immaterial.” So in May _v._ Burdett, 9 Q. B. 112, the Court, after an elaborate examination of the old precedents and authorities, came to the conclusion that “a person keeping a mischievous animal, with knowledge of its propensities, is bound to keep it secure at his peril.” And in 1 Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, 430, Lord Hale states that where one keeps a beast, knowing its nature or habits are such that the natural consequence of his being loose is that he will harm men, the owner “must at his peril keep him up safe from doing hurt; for though he use his diligence to keep him up, if he escape and do harm, the owner is liable to answer damages;” though, as he proceeds to show, he will not be liable criminally without proof of want of care. In these latter authorities the point under consideration was damage to the person, and what was decided was, that where it was known that hurt to the person was the natural consequence of the animal being loose, the owner should be responsible in damages for such hurt, though where it was not known to be so, the owner was not responsible for such damages; but where the damage is, like eating grass or other ordinary ingredients in damage feasant, the natural consequence of the escape, the rule as to keeping in the animal is the same. In Com. Dig. _Droit._ (M. 2), it is said that “if the owner of 200 acres in a common moor enfeoffs B. of 50 acres, B. ought to enclose at his peril, to prevent damage by his cattle to the other 150 acres. For if his cattle escape thither they may be distrained damage feasant. So the owner of the 150 acres ought to prevent his cattle from doing damage to the 50 acres at his peril.” The authority cited is Dyer, 372 _b_., where the decision was that the cattle might be distrained; the inference from that decision, that the owner was bound to keep in his cattle at his peril, is, we think, legitimate, and we have the high authority of Comyns for saying that such is the law. In the note to Fitzherbert, Nat. Brevium, 128, which is attributed to Lord Hale, it is said, “If A. and B. have lands adjoining, where there is no enclosure, the one shall have trespass against the other on an escape of their beasts respectively: Dyer, 372, Rastal Ent. 621, 20 Ed. 4, 10; although wild dogs, &c., drive the cattle of the one into the lands of the other.” No case is known to us on which in replevin it has ever been attempted to plead in bar to an avowry for distress damage feasant, that the cattle had escaped without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and surely if that could have been a good plea in bar, the facts must often have been such as would have supported it. These authorities, and the absence of any authority to the contrary, justify Williams, J., in saying, as he does in Cox _v._ Burbidge, _supra_, that the law is clear that in actions for damage occasioned by animals that have not been kept in by their owners, it is quite immaterial whether the escape is by negligence or not.

As has been already said, there does not appear to be any difference in principle between the extent of the duty cast on him who brings cattle on his land to keep them in, and the extent of the duty imposed on him who brings on his land water, filth, or stenches, or any other thing which will, if it escape, naturally do damage, to prevent their escaping and injuring his neighbor; and the case of Tenant _v._ Goldwin, _supra_, is an express authority that the duty is the same, and is, to keep them in at his peril.

As Martin, B., in his judgment below, appears not to have understood that case in the same manner as we do, it is proper to examine it in some detail. It was a motion in arrest of judgment after judgment by default, and therefore all that was well pleaded in the declaration was admitted to be true. The declaration is set out at full length in the report in 6 Mod. p. 311. It alleged that the plaintiff had a cellar which lay contiguous to a messuage of the defendant, “and used (_solebat_) to be separated and fenced from a privy house of office, parcel of the said messuage of defendant, by a thick and close wall, which belongs to the said messuage of the defendant, and by the defendant of right ought to have been repaired (_jure debuit reparari_).” Yet he did not repair it, and for want of repair filth flowed into plaintiff’s cellar. The case is reported by Salkeld, who argued it, in 6 Mod., and by Lord Raymond, whose report is the fullest. The objection taken was that there was nothing to show that the defendant was under any obligation to repair the wall, that, it was said, being a charge not of common right, and the allegation that the wall _de jure debuit reparari_ by the defendant being an inference of law which did not arise from the facts alleged. Salkeld argued that this general mode of stating the right was sufficient in a declaration, and also that the duty alleged did of common right result from the facts stated. It is not now material to inquire whether he was or was not right on the pleading point. All three reports concur in saying that Lord Holt, during the argument, intimated an opinion against him on that, but that after consideration the Court gave judgment for him on the second ground. In the report of 6 Mod. 314, it is stated: “And at another day _per totam curiam_. The declaration is good; for there is a sufficient cause of action appearing in it; but not upon the word ‘_solebat_.’ If the defendant has a house of office enclosed with a wall which is his, he is of common right bound to use it so as not to annoy another.... The reason here is, that one must use his own so as thereby not to hurt another, and as of common right one is bound to keep his cattle from trespassing on his neighbor, so he is bound to use anything that is his so as not to hurt another by such use.... Suppose one sells a piece of pasture lying open to another piece of pasture which the vendor has, the vendee is bound to keep his cattle from running into the vendor’s piece; so of dung or anything else.” There is here an evident allusion to the same case in Dyer, see _ante_, p. 334, as is referred to in Com. Dig. _Droit._ (M. 2). Lord Raymond in his report, 2 Ld. Raym. at p. 1092, says: “The last day of term, Holt, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court that the declaration was sufficient. He said that upon the face of this declaration there appeared a sufficient cause of action to entitle the plaintiff to have his judgment; that they did not go upon the _solebat_, or the _jure debuit reparari_, as if it were enough to say that the plaintiff had a house and the defendant had a wall, and he ought to repair the wall; but if the defendant has a house of office, and the wall which separates the house of office from the plaintiff’s house is all the defendant’s, he is of common right bound to repair it.... The reason of this case is upon this account, that every one must so use his own as not to do damage to another; and as every man is bound so to look to his cattle as to keep them out of his neighbor’s ground, that so he may receive no damage; so he must keep in the filth of his house of office that it may not flow in upon and damnify his neighbor.... So if a man has two pieces of pasture which lie open to one another, and sells one piece, the vendee must keep in his cattle so as they shall not trespass upon the vendor. So a man shall not lay his dung so high as to damage his neighbor, and the reason of these cases is because every man must so use his own as not to damnify another.” Salkeld, who had been counsel in the case, reports the judgment much more concisely (1 Salk. 361), but to the same effect; he says: “The reason he gave for his judgment was because it was the defendant’s wall and the defendant’s filth, and he was bound of common right to keep his wall so as his filth might not damnify his neighbor, and that it was a trespass on his neighbor, as if his beasts should escape, or one should make a great heap on the border of his ground, and it should tumble and roll down upon his neighbor’s, ... he must repair the wall of his house of office, for he whose dirt it is must keep it that it may not trespass.” It is worth noticing how completely the reason of Lord Holt corresponds with that of Brian, C. J., in the cases already cited in 20 Ed. 4. Martin, B., in the Court below says that he thinks this was a case without difficulty, because the defendant had, by letting judgment go by default, admitted his liability to repair the wall, and that he cannot see how it is an authority for any case in which no such liability is admitted. But a perusal of the report will show that it was because Lord Holt and his colleagues thought (no matter for this purpose whether rightly or wrongly) that the liability was not admitted, that they took so much trouble to consider what liability the law would raise from the admitted facts, and it does therefore seem to us to be a very weighty authority in support of the position that he who brings and keeps anything, no matter whether beasts, or filth, or clean water, or a heap of earth or dung on his premises, must at his peril prevent it from getting on his neighbor’s, or make good all the damage which is the natural consequence of its doing so. No case has been found in which the question as to the liability for noxious vapors escaping from a man’s works by inevitable accident has been discussed, but the following case will illustrate it. Some years ago several actions were brought against the occupiers of some alkali works at Liverpool for the damage alleged to be caused by the chlorine fumes of their works. The defendants proved that they at great expense erected contrivances by which the fumes of chlorine were condensed and sold as muriatic acid, and they called a great body of scientific evidence to prove that this apparatus was so perfect that no fumes possibly could escape from the defendants’ chimneys. On this evidence it was pressed upon the jury that the plaintiff’s damage must have been due to some of the numerous other chimneys in the neighborhood; the jury, however, being satisfied that the mischief was occasioned by chlorine, drew the conclusion that it had escaped from the defendants’ works somehow, and in each case found for the plaintiff. No attempt was made to disturb these verdicts on the ground that the defendants had taken every precaution which prudence or skill could suggest to keep those fumes in, and that they could not be responsible unless negligence were shown; yet, if the law be as laid down by the majority of the Court of Exchequer, it would have been a very obvious defence. If it had been raised the answer would probably have been that the uniform course of pleading in actions on such nuisances is to say that the defendant caused the noisome vapors to arise on his premises, and suffered them to come on the plaintiff’s, without stating that there was any want of care or skill in the defendant, and that the case of Tenant _v._ Goldwin, _supra_, showed that this was founded on the general rule of law, that he whose stuff it is must keep it that it may not trespass. There is no difference in this respect between chlorine and water; both will, if they escape, do damage, the one by scorching and the other by drowning, and he who brings them there must at his peril see that they do not escape and do that mischief. What is said by Gibbs, C. J., in Sutton _v._ Clarke, 6 Taunt. 44, though not necessary for the decision of the case, shows that that very learned judge took the same view of the law that was taken by Lord Holt. But it was further said by Martin, B., that when damage is done to personal property, or even to the person, by collision, either upon land or at sea, there must be negligence in the party doing the damage to render him legally responsible; and this is no doubt true, and as was pointed out by Mr. Mellish during his argument before us, this is not confined to cases of collision, for there are many cases in which proof of negligence is essential, as, for instance, where an unruly horse gets on the footpath of a public street and kills a passenger, Hammack _v._ White, 11 C. B. N. S. 588; 31 L. J. (C. P.) 129; or where a person in a dock is struck by the falling of a bale of cotton which the defendant’s servants are lowering: Scott _v._ London Dock Company, 3 H. & C. 596; 35 L. J. (Ex.) 17, 220; and many other similar cases may be found. But we think these cases distinguishable from the present. Traffic on the highways, whether by land or sea, cannot be conducted without exposing those whose persons or property are near it to some inevitable risk; and that being so, those who go on the highway, or have their property adjacent to it, may well be held to do so subject to their taking upon themselves the risk of injury from that inevitable danger; and persons who by the license of the owner pass near to warehouses where goods are being raised or lowered, certainly do so subject to the inevitable risk of accident. In neither case, therefore, can they recover without proof of want of care or skill occasioning the accident; and it is believed that all the cases in which inevitable accident has been held an excuse for what _prima facie_ was a trespass, can be explained on the same principle, viz., that the circumstances were such as to show that the plaintiff had taken that risk upon himself. But there is no ground for saying that the plaintiff here took upon himself any risk arising from the uses to which the defendants should choose to apply their land. He neither knew what these might be, nor could he in any way control the defendants, or hinder their building what reservoirs they liked, and storing up in them what water they pleased, so long as the defendants succeeded in preventing the water which they there brought from interfering with the plaintiff’s property.

The view which we take of the first point renders it unnecessary to consider whether the defendants would or would not be responsible for the want of care and skill in the persons employed by them, under the circumstances stated in the case [pp. 268–269].

We are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, but as we have not heard any argument as to the amount, we are not able to give judgment for what damages. The parties probably will empower their counsel to agree on the amount of damages; should they differ on the principle the case may be mentioned again.

_Judgment for the plaintiff._

Rylands and Horrocks brought error in the House of Lords against the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, which had reversed the judgment of the Court of Exchequer.

[Arguments omitted.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Cairns). My Lords, in this case the plaintiff (I may use the description of the parties in the action) is the occupier of a mine and works under a close of land. The defendants are the owners of a mill in his neighborhood, and they proposed to make a reservoir for the purpose of keeping and storing water to be used about their mill upon another close of land, which, for the purposes of this case, may be taken as being adjoining to the close of the plaintiff, although in point of fact some intervening land lay between the two. Underneath the close of land of the defendants on which they proposed to construct their reservoir there were certain old and disused mining passages and works. There were five vertical shafts and some horizontal shafts communicating with them. The vertical shafts had been filled up with soil and rubbish, and it does not appear that any person was aware of the existence either of the vertical shafts or of the horizontal works communicating with them. In the course of the working by the plaintiff of his mine he had gradually worked through the seams of coal underneath the close, and had come into contact with the old and disused works underneath the close of the defendants.

In that state of things the reservoir of the defendants was constructed. It was constructed by them through the agency and inspection of an engineer and contractor. Personally, the defendants appear to have taken no part in the works, or to have been aware of any want of security connected with them. As regards the engineer and the contractor, we must take it from the case that they did not exercise, as far as they were concerned, that reasonable care and caution which they might have exercised, taking notice, as they appear to have taken notice, of the vertical shafts filled up in the manner which I have mentioned. However, my Lords, when the reservoir was constructed and filled, or partly filled, with water, the weight of the water bearing upon the disused and imperfectly filled-up vertical shafts, broke through those shafts. The water passed down them and into the horizontal workings, and from the horizontal workings under the close of the defendants it passed on into the workings under the close of the plaintiff, and flooded his mine, causing considerable damage, for which this action was brought.

The Court of Exchequer, when the special case stating the facts to which I have referred was argued, was of opinion that the plaintiff had established no cause of action. The Court of Exchequer Chamber, before which an appeal from this judgment was argued, was of a contrary opinion, and the judges there unanimously arrived at the conclusion that there was a cause of action, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages.

My Lords, the principles on which this case must be determined appear to me to be extremely simple. The defendants, treating them as the owners or occupiers of the close on which the reservoir was constructed, might lawfully have used that close for any purpose for which it might in the ordinary course of the enjoyment of land be used; and if, in what I may term the natural user of that land, there had been any accumulation of water, either on the surface or under ground, and if, by the operation of the laws of nature, that accumulation of water had passed off into the close occupied by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not have complained that that result had taken place. If he had desired to guard himself against it, it would have lain upon him to have done so by leaving, or by interposing, some barrier between his close and the close of the defendants in order to have prevented that operation of the laws of nature.

As an illustration of that principle, I may refer to a case which was cited in the argument before your Lordships, the case of Smith _v._ Kenrick, in the Court of Common Pleas, 7 C. B. 515.

On the other hand, if the defendants, not stopping at the natural use of their close, had desired to use it for any purpose which I may term a non-natural use,[287] for the purpose of introducing into the close that which in its natural condition was not in or upon it, for the purpose of introducing water either above or below ground in quantities and in a manner not the result of any work or operation on or under the land; and if in consequence of their doing so, or in consequence of any imperfection in the mode of their doing so, the water came to escape and to pass off into the close of the plaintiff, then it appears to me that that which the defendants were doing they were doing at their own peril; and if in the course of their doing it the evil arose to which I have referred, the evil, namely, of the escape of the water and its passing away to the close of the plaintiff and injuring the plaintiff, then for the consequence of that, in my opinion, the defendants would be liable. As the case of Smith _v._ Kenrick is an illustration of the first principle to which I have referred, so also the second principle to which I have referred is well illustrated by another case in the same Court, the case of Baird _v._ Williamson, 15 C. B. N. S. 317, which was also cited in the argument at the Bar.

My Lords, these simple principles, if they are well founded, as it appears to me they are, really dispose of this case.

The same result is arrived at on the principles referred to by Mr. Justice Blackburn in his judgment in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, where he states the opinion of that Court as to the law in these words: “We think that the true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so, is _prima facie_ answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default; or, perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of _vis major_, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbor, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbor’s reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbor’s privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapors of his neighbor’s alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbor who has brought something on his own property (which was not naturally there), harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbor’s, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there, so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequence. And upon authority this we think is established to be the law, whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches.”

My Lords, in that opinion I must say I entirely concur. Therefore, I have to move your Lordships that the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber be affirmed, and that the present appeal be dismissed with costs.

LORD CRANWORTH. My Lords, I concur with my noble and learned friend in thinking that the rule of law was correctly stated by Mr. Justice Blackburn in delivering the opinion of the Exchequer Chamber. If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbor, he does so at his peril. If it does escape and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.

In considering whether a defendant is liable to a plaintiff for damage which the plaintiff may have sustained, the question in general is not whether the defendant has acted with due care and caution, but whether his acts have occasioned the damage. This is all well explained in the old case of Lambert _v._ Bessey, reported by Sir Thomas Raymond (Sir T. Raym. 421). And the doctrine is founded on good sense. For when one person, in managing his own affairs, causes, however innocently, damage to another, it is obviously only just that he should be the party to suffer. He is bound _sic uti suo ut non lædat alienum_. This is the principle of law applicable to cases like the present, and I do not discover in the authorities which were cited anything conflicting with it.

The doctrine appears to me to be well illustrated by the two modern cases in the Court of Common Pleas referred to by my noble and learned friend. I allude to the two cases of Smith _v._ Kenrick, _supra_, and Baird _v._ Williamson, _supra_. In the former the owner of a coal mine on the higher level worked out the whole of his coal, leaving no barrier between his mine and the mine on the lower level, so that the water percolating through the upper mine flowed into the lower mine, and obstructed the owner of it in getting his coal. It was held that the owner of the lower mine had no ground of complaint. The defendant, the owner of the upper mine, had a right to remove all his coal. The damage sustained by the plaintiff was occasioned by the natural flow or percolation of water from the upper strata. There was no obligation on the defendant to protect the plaintiff against this. It was his business to erect or leave a sufficient barrier to keep out the water, or to adopt proper means for so conducting the water as that it should not impede him in his workings. The water in that case was only left by the defendant to flow in its natural course.

But in the later case of Baird _v._ Williamson, the defendant, the owner of the upper mine, did not merely suffer the water to flow through his mine without leaving a barrier between it and the mine below, but in order to work in his own mine beneficially he pumped up quantities of water which passed into the plaintiff’s mine in addition to that which would have naturally reached it, and so occasioned him damage. Though this was done without negligence and in the due working of his own mine, yet he was held to be responsible for the damage so occasioned. It was in consequence of his act, whether skilfully or unskilfully performed, that the plaintiff had been damaged, and he was therefore held liable for the consequences. The damage in the former case may be treated as having arisen from the act of God; in the latter, from the act of the defendant.

Applying the principle of these decisions to the case now before the House, I come without hesitation to the conclusion that the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber was right. The plaintiff had a right to work his coal through the lands of Mr. Whitehead and up to the old workings. If water naturally rising in the defendants’ land (we may treat the land as the land of the defendants for the purpose of this case) had by percolation found its way down to the plaintiff’s mine through the old workings, and so had impeded his operations, that would not have afforded him any ground of complaint. Even if all the old workings had been made by the plaintiff, he would have done no more than he was entitled to do; for, according to the principle acted on in Smith _v._ Kenrick, the person working the mine under the close in which the reservoir was made had a right to win and carry away all the coal without leaving any wall or barrier against Whitehead’s land. But that is not the real state of the case. The defendants, in order to effect an object of their own, brought on to their land, or on to land which for this purpose may be treated as being theirs, a large accumulated mass of water, and stored it up in a reservoir. The consequence of this was damage to the plaintiff, and for that damage, however skilfully and carefully the accumulation was made, the defendants, according to the principles and authorities to which I have adverted, were certainly responsible.

I concur, therefore, with my noble and learned friend in thinking that the judgment below must be affirmed, and that there must be judgment for the defendant in error.

_Judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber affirmed._[288]

NICHOLS _v._ MARSLAND
IN THE EXCHEQUER, JUNE 12, 1875.
_Reported in Law Reports, 10 Exchequer, 255._

NICHOLS _v._ MARSLAND
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, DECEMBER 1, 1876.
_Reported in Law Reports, 2 Exchequer Division, 1._

The plaintiff sued as the surveyor for the County of Chester of bridges repairable at the expense of the county.

The first count of the declaration alleged that the defendant was possessed of lands and of artificial pools constructed thereon for receiving and holding, and wherein were kept, large quantities of water, yet the defendant took so little and such bad care of the pools and the water therein that large quantities of water escaped from the pools and destroyed four county bridges, whereby the inhabitants of the county incurred expense in repairing and rebuilding them.

The second count alleged that the defendant was possessed of large quantities of water collected and contained in three artificial pools of the defendant near to four county bridges, and stated the breach as in the first count.

Plea, not guilty, and issue thereon.

At the trial before COCKBURN, C. J., at the Chester Summer Assizes, 1874, the plaintiff’s witnesses gave evidence to the following effect: The defendant occupied a mansion-house and grounds at Henbury, in the County of Chester. A natural stream called Bagbrook, which rose in higher lands, ran through the defendant’s grounds, and after leaving them flowed under the four county bridges in question. After entering the defendant’s grounds the stream was diverted and dammed up by an artificial embankment into a pool of three acres in area called “the upper pool,” from which it escaped over a weir in the embankment, and was again similarly dammed up by an artificial embankment into the “middle pool,” which was between one and two acres in area. Escaping over a weir in the embankment, it was again dammed up into “the lower pool,” which was between eight and nine acres in area, and from which the stream escaped into its natural and original course.

About five o’clock P. M. on the 18th of June, 1872, occurred a terrible thunder storm, accompanied by heavy rain, which continued till about three o’clock A. M. on the 19th. The rainfall was greater and more violent than any within the memory of the witnesses, and swelled the stream both above and in the defendant’s grounds. On the morning of the 19th it was found that during the night the violence and volume of the water had carried away the artificial embankments of the three pools, the accumulated water in which, being thus suddenly let loose, had swelled the stream below the pools so that it carried away and destroyed the county bridges mentioned in the declaration. At the pools were paddles for letting off the water, but for several years they had been out of working order.

Some engineers and other witnesses gave evidence that in their opinion the weir in the upper pool was far too small for a pool of that size, and that the mischief happened through the insufficiency of the means for carrying off the water. It was not proved when these ornamental pools were constructed, but it appeared that they had existed before the defendant began to occupy the property, and that no similar accident had ever occurred within the knowledge of the witnesses.

After hearing the address of the defendant’s counsel, the jury said they did not wish to hear his witnesses, and that in their opinion the accident was caused by _vis major_. In answer to Cockburn, C. J., they found that there was no negligence in the construction or maintenance of the works, and that the rain was most excessive. Cockburn, C. J., being of opinion that the rainfall, though extraordinary and unprecedented, did not amount to _vis major_ or excuse the defendant from liability, entered the verdict for the plaintiff for 4092_l._, the agreed amount, reserving leave to the defendant to move to enter it for her if the Court (who were to draw inferences of fact) should be of opinion that the rainfall amounted to _vis major_, and so distinguished the case from Rylands _v._ Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330.

A rule _nisi_ having been accordingly obtained to enter the verdict for the defendant on the ground that there was no proof of liability, the plaintiff on showing cause to be at liberty to contend that a new trial should be granted on the ground that the finding of the jury was against the weight of evidence—

May 27. _McIntyre_, Q. C., and _Coxon_, for the plaintiff, showed cause. The defendant, having for her own purposes and advantage stored a dangerous element on her premises, is liable if that element escapes and injures the property of another, even though the escape be caused by an earthquake or any form of _vis major_.

[CLEASBY, B. Was not the flood brought on to the defendant’s land by _vis major_?]

The pools were made by those through whom the defendant claims, and if there had been no pools the water of the natural stream would have escaped without doing injury. The case falls within the rule laid down by the judgment in Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Ex. 265, 279, delivered by Blackburn, J.: “We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so is _prima facie_ answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default, or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of _vis major_, or the act of God.” This passage was cited with approval by Lord Cairns, C., and Lord Cranworth on appeal. L. R. 3 H. L. 330, 339, 340.

[CLEASBY, B. There the defendant brought the water on to his own land. Not so here.]

The intimation that _vis major_ would perhaps be an excuse is not confirmed by any decision or any other _dictum_. But the facts here do not amount to _vis major_. If the weirs had been larger, or the banks stronger, the mischief would not have happened. _Vis major_ means something which cannot be foreseen or resisted, as an earthquake or an act of the Queen’s enemies.

_Hughes_ and _Dunn_ (_Sir J. Holker_, S. G., with them), in support of the rule, cited Broom’s Legal Maxims, 5th ed. p. 230: “The act of God signifies in legal phraseology any inevitable accident occurring without the intervention of man, and may indeed be considered to mean something in opposition to the act of man, as storms, tempests, and lightning: _per_ Mansfield, C. J., in Forward _v._ Pittard, 1 T. R. 33; Trent Navigation _v._ Wood, 3 Esp. 131; Rex _v._ Somerset, 8 T. R. 312.” Also Amies _v._ Stevens, 1 Str. 127; Smith _v._ Fletcher, L. R. 9 Ex. 64; May _v._ Burdett, 9 Q. B. 101; and Jackson _v._ Smithson, 15 M. & W. 563.

[The question of the verdict being against the evidence was then argued.]

_Cur. adv. vult._

June 12. The judgment of the Court (KELLY, C. B., BRAMWELL, and CLEASBY, BB.) was read by

BRAMWELL, B. In this case I understand the jury to have found that all reasonable care had been taken by the defendant, that the banks were fit for all events to be anticipated, and the weirs broad enough; that the storm was of such violence as to be properly called the act of God, or _vis major_. No doubt, as was said by Mr. McIntyre, a shower is the act of God as much as a storm; so is an earthquake in this country: yet every one understands that a storm, supernatural in one sense, may properly, like an earthquake in this country, be called the act of God, or _vis major_. No doubt not the act of God or a _vis major_ in the sense that it was physically impossible to resist it, but in the sense that it was practically impossible to do so. Had the banks been twice as strong, or if that would not do, ten times, and ten times as high, and the weir ten times as wide, the mischief might not have happened. But those are not practical conditions, they are such that to enforce them would prevent the reasonable use of property in the way most beneficial to the community.