Chapter XXXIII: Section III: Dangerous Use of Land (2)

So understanding the finding of the jury, I am of opinion the defendant is not liable. What has the defendant done wrong? What right of the plaintiff has she infringed? She has done nothing wrong, she has infringed no right. It is not the defendant who let loose the water and sent it to destroy the bridges. She did indeed store it, and store it in such quantities that, if it was let loose, it would do, as it did, mischief. But suppose a stranger let it loose, would the defendant be liable? If so, then if a mischievous boy bored a hole in a cistern in any London house, and the water did mischief to a neighbor, the occupier of the house would be liable. That cannot be. Then why is the defendant liable if some agent over which she has no control lets the water out? Mr. McIntyre contended that she would be in all cases of the water being let out, whether by a stranger or the Queen’s enemies, or by natural causes, as lightning or an earthquake. Why? What is the difference between a reservoir and a stack of chimneys for such a question as this? Here the defendant stored a lot of water for her own purposes; in the case of the chimneys some one has put a ton of bricks fifty feet high for his own purposes; both equally harmless if they stay where placed, and equally mischievous if they do not. The water is no more a wild or savage animal than the bricks while at rest, nor more so when in motion: both have the same property of obeying the law of gravitation. Could it be said that no one could have a stack of chimneys except on the terms of being liable for any damage done by their being overthrown by a hurricane or an earthquake? If so, it would be dangerous to have a tree, for a wind might come so strong as to blow it out of the ground into a neighbor’s land and cause it to do damage; or a field of ripe wheat, which might be fired by lightning and do mischief.

I admit that it is not a question of negligence. A man may use all care to keep the water in, or the stack of chimneys standing, but would be liable if through any defect, though latent, the water escaped or the bricks fell. But here the act is that of an agent he cannot control.

This case differs wholly from Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Ex. 265, 279. There the defendant poured the water into the plaintiff’s mine. He did not know he was doing so; but he did it as much as though he had poured it into an open channel which led to the mine without his knowing it. Here the defendant merely brought it to a place whence another agent let it loose. I am by no means sure that the likeness of a wild animal is exact. I am by no means sure that if a man kept a tiger, and lightning broke his chain, and he got loose and did mischief, that the man who kept him would not be liable. But this case and the case I put of the chimneys, are not cases of keeping a dangerous beast for amusement, but of a reasonable use of property in a way beneficial to the community. I think this analogy has made some of the difficulty in this case. Water stored in a reservoir may be the only practical mode of supplying a district and so adapting it for habitation. I refer to my judgment [3 H. & C. 788; 34 L. J. (Ex.) 181] in Fletcher _v._ Rylands, and I repeat that here the plaintiff had no right that has been infringed, and the defendant has done no wrong. The plaintiff’s right is to say to the defendant, _Sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas_, and that the defendant has done, and no more.

The CHIEF BARON and my brother CLEASBY agree in this judgment. As to the plaintiff’s application for a new trial on the ground that the finding of the jury is against evidence, we have spoken to Cockburn, C. J.; he is not dissatisfied therewith, and we cannot see it is wrong. Consequently the rule will be absolute to enter a verdict for the defendant.

_Rule absolute._

In Court of Appeal.

_Cotton_, Q. C. (_McIntyre_, Q. C., and _Coxon_ with him), for the plaintiff, appellant.[289]

Assuming the jury to be right in finding that the defendant was not guilty of negligence, and that the rainfall amounted to _vis major_, or the act of God, still the defendant is liable because she has, without necessity and voluntarily for her own pleasure, stored on her premises an element which was liable to be let loose, and which, if let loose, would be dangerous to her neighbors. Even if she be considered innocent of wrong-doing, why should the plaintiff suffer for the defendant’s voluntary act of turning an otherwise harmless stream into a source of danger? But for the defendant’s embankments, the excessive rainfall would have escaped without doing injury.

_Gorst_, Q. C., and _Hughes_ (_Dunn_ with them), for defendant, cited Carstairs _v._ Taylor, L. R. 6 Ex. 217; McCoy _v._ Danbey, 20 Penn. State, 85; Tennent _v._ Earl of Glasgow, 1 Court of Session Cases, 3d series, 133.

The judgment of the Court (COCKBURN, C. J., JAMES, and MELLISH, L.JJ., and BAGGALLAY, J. A.) was read by

MELLISH, L. J. This was an action brought by the county surveyor [under 43 Geo. 3, c. 59, s. 4] of the County of Chester against the defendant to recover damages on account of the destruction of four county bridges which had been carried away by the bursting of some reservoirs. At the trial before Cockburn, C. J., it appeared that the defendant was the owner of a series of artificial ornamental lakes, which had existed for a great number of years, and had never, previous to the 18th day of June, 1872, caused any damage. On that day, however, after a most unusual fall of rain, the lakes overflowed, the dams at their end gave way, and the water out of the lakes carried away the county bridges lower down the stream. The jury found that there was no negligence either in the construction or the maintenance of the reservoirs, but that if the flood could have been anticipated, the effect might have been prevented.[290] Upon this finding the Lord Chief Justice, acting on the decision in Rylands _v._ Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330, as the nearest authority applicable to the case, directed a verdict for the plaintiff, but gave leave to move to enter a verdict for the defendant. The Court of Exchequer have ordered the verdict to be entered for the defendant, and from their decision an appeal has been brought before us.

The appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Rylands _v._ Fletcher, _supra_. In that case the rule of law on which the case was decided was thus laid down by Mr. Justice Blackburn in the Exchequer Chamber [L. R. 1 Ex. 279]: “We think 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 the sort exists here it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.” It appears to us that we have two questions to consider: First, the question of law, which was left undecided in Rylands _v._ Fletcher, _supra_,—Can the defendant excuse herself by showing that the escape of the water was owing to _vis major_, or, as it is termed in the law books, the “act of God?” And, secondly, if she can, did she in fact make out that the escape was so occasioned?

Now, with respect to the first question, the ordinary rule of law is that when the law creates a duty and the party is disabled from performing it without any default of his own, by the act of God, or the King’s enemies, the law will excuse him; but when a party by his own contract creates a duty, he is bound to make it good notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity. We can see no good reason why that rule should not be applied to the case before us. The duty of keeping the water in and preventing its escape is a duty imposed by the law, and not one created by contract. If, indeed, the making a reservoir was a wrongful act in itself, it might be right to hold that a person could not escape from the consequences of his own wrongful act. But it seems to us absurd to hold that the making or the keeping a reservoir is a wrongful act in itself. The wrongful act is not the making or keeping the reservoir, but the allowing or causing the water to escape. If, indeed, the damages were occasioned by the act of the party without more—as where a man accumulates water on his own land, but, owing to the peculiar nature or condition of the soil, the water escapes and does damage to his neighbor—the case of Rylands _v._ Fletcher, _supra_, establishes that he must be held liable. The accumulation of water in a reservoir is not in itself wrongful; but the making it and suffering the water to escape, if damage ensue, constitute a wrong. But the present case is distinguished from that of Rylands _v._ Fletcher, _supra_, in this, that it is not the act of the defendant in keeping this reservoir, an act in itself lawful, which alone leads to the escape of the water, and so renders wrongful that which but for such escape would have been lawful. It is the supervening _vis major_ of the water caused by the flood, which, superadded to the water in the reservoir (which of itself would have been innocuous), causes the disaster. A defendant cannot, in our opinion, be properly said to have caused or allowed the water to escape, if the act of God or the Queen’s enemies was the real cause of its escaping without any fault on the part of the defendant. If a reservoir was destroyed by an earthquake, or the Queen’s enemies destroyed it in conducting some warlike operation, it would be contrary to all reason and justice to hold the owner of the reservoir liable for any damage that might be done by the escape of the water. We are of opinion, therefore, that the defendant was entitled to excuse herself by proving that the water escaped through the act of God.

The remaining question is, did the defendant make out that the escape of the water was owing to the act of God? Now the jury have distinctly found, not only that there was no negligence in the construction or the maintenance of the reservoirs, but that the flood was so great that it could not reasonably have been anticipated, although, if it had been anticipated, the effect might have been prevented; and this seems to us in substance a finding that the escape of the water was owing to the act of God. However great the flood had been, if it had not been greater than floods that had happened before and might be expected to occur again, the defendant might not have made out that she was free from fault; but we think she ought not to be held liable because she did not prevent the effect of an extraordinary act of nature, which she could not anticipate. In the late case of Nugent _v._ Smith, 1 C. P. D. 423, we held that a carrier might be protected from liability for a loss occasioned by the act of God, if the loss by no reasonable precaution could be prevented, although it was not absolutely impossible to prevent it.

It was indeed ingeniously argued for the appellant that at any rate the escape of the water was not owing solely to the act of God, because the weight of the water originally in the reservoirs must have contributed to break down the dams, as well as the extraordinary water brought in by the flood. We think, however, that the extraordinary quantity of water brought in by the flood is in point of law the sole proximate cause of the escape of the water. It is the last drop which makes the cup overflow.

On the whole we are of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Exchequer ought to be affirmed.

_Judgment affirmed._[291]

BOX _v._ JUBB
IN THE EXCHEQUER DIVISION, FEBRUARY 25, 1879.
_Reported in Law Reports, 4 Exchequer Division, 76._

Case stated in an action brought in the County Court of Yorkshire, holden at Bradford, to recover damages by reason of the overflowing of a reservoir of the defendants.

1. The defendants are the owners and occupiers of a woollen clothmill situate at Batley, in the county of York, and for the necessary supply of water to the mill is a reservoir, also belonging to the defendants. Such mill and reservoir have been built, and constructed, and used, as at the time of the overflowing of the reservoir hereinafter mentioned, for many years.

2. The plaintiff is the tenant of premises adjoining the reservoir.

3. The reservoir is supplied with water from a main drain or watercourse. The surplus water from the reservoir passes through an outlet into the main drain or watercourse. The inlet and outlet are furnished with proper doors or sluices, so as (when required) to close the communications between the reservoir and the main drain or watercourse.

4. The whole of the premises are within the borough of Batley, and the defendants have the right to use the main drain or watercourse by obtaining a supply of water therefrom and discharging their surplus water thereinto, as hereinbefore stated, but have otherwise no control over the drain or watercourse, which does not belong to them.

5. In the month of December, 1877, the plaintiff’s premises were flooded by reason of the overflowing of the defendants’ reservoir.

6. Such overflowing was caused by the emptying of a large quantity of water from a reservoir, the property of a third party, into the main drain or watercourse at a point considerably above the defendants’ premises, and by an obstruction in the main drain or watercourse below the outlet of the defendants’ reservoir, whereby the water from such main drain or watercourse was forced through the doors or sluices (which were closed at the time) into the defendants’ reservoir.

7. Such obstruction was caused by circumstances over which the defendants had no control, and without their knowledge; and had it not been for such obstruction the overflowing of the reservoir would not have happened.

8. The defendants’ reservoir, and the communications between it and the main drain or watercourse, and the doors or sluices, are constructed and maintained in a proper manner, so as to prevent the overflowing of the reservoir under all ordinary circumstances.

9. No negligence or wrongful act is attributable to either party.

Under the circumstances the judge of the County Court was of opinion that the defendants were liable for the damage sustained by the plaintiff, and accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff.

The question for the opinion of the Court, having regard to the facts set out in the case, was whether the defendants were liable for the damage sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the flooding of his premises, such flooding being caused by water from a reservoir belonging to a third party, over which the defendants had no control, and without any knowledge or negligence on defendants’ part, the overflowing of the defendants’ reservoir being occasioned by the act of a third party, over whom the defendants had no control, and no wrongful act or negligence being attributable to the defendants, and the direct cause of the damage being the obstruction in the main drain or watercourse, which was caused by circumstances over which the defendants had no control and without their knowledge.[292]

KELLY, C. B. I think this judgment must be reversed. The case states that for many years the defendants have been possessed of a reservoir to which there are gates or sluices. There has been an overflow from the reservoir which has caused damage to the plaintiff. The question is, what was the cause of this overflow? Was it anything for which the defendants are responsible—did it proceed from their act or default, or from that of a stranger over which they had no control? The case is abundantly clear on this, proving beyond a doubt that the defendants had no control over the causes of the overflow, and no knowledge of the existence of the obstruction. The matters complained of took place through no default or breach of duty of the defendants, but were caused by a stranger over whom and at a spot where they had no control. It seems to me to be immaterial whether this is called _vis major_ or the unlawful act of a stranger; it is sufficient to say that the defendants had no means of preventing the occurrence. I think the defendants could not possibly have been expected to anticipate that which happened here, and the law does not require them to construct their reservoir and the sluices and gates leading to it to meet any amount of pressure which the wrongful act of a third person may impose. The judgment must be entered for the defendants.

POLLOCK, B. I also think the defendants are entitled to judgment. Looking at the facts stated, that the defendants had no control over the main drain, and no knowledge of or control over the obstruction, apart from the cases, what wrong have the defendants done for which they should be held liable? The case of Rylands _v._ Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330, is quite distinguishable. The case of Nichols _v._ Marsland, L. R. 10 Ex. 255, 14 Eng. R. 538, is more in point. The illustrations put in that case clearly go to show that if the person who has collected the water has done all that skill and judgment can do he is not liable for damage by acts over which he has no control. In the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 2 Ex. D. 1, at p. 5, Mellish, L. J., adopts the principle laid down by this Court. He says: “If indeed the damages were occasioned by the act of the party without more—as where a man accumulates water on his own land, but owing to the peculiar nature or condition of the soil the water escapes and does damage to his neighbor—the case of Rylands _v._ Fletcher, _supra_, establishes that he must be held liable.” Here this water has not been accumulated by the defendants, but has come from elsewhere and added to that which was properly and safely there. For this the defendants, in my opinion, both on principle and authority, cannot be held liable.

_Judgment for the defendants._[293]

MARSHALL _v._ WELWOOD
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, JUNE TERM, 1876.
_Reported in 38 New Jersey Law Reports, 339._

Suit for damages done to the property of the plaintiff by the bursting of the boiler of a steam-engine on the adjoining property of the defendant Welwood. Garside, the other defendant, had sold this boiler to Welwood, and was experimenting with it at the time of the explosion.

The case came before the Court on a motion for a new trial, the verdict having gone for the plaintiff against both defendants.

Argued at February Term, 1876, before BEASLEY, C. J., and WOODHULL, VAN SYCKEL, and SCUDDER, JJ.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

BEASLEY, C. J. The judge, at the trial of this cause, charged, among other matters, that as the evidence incontestably showed that one of the defendants, Welwood, was the owner of the boiler which caused the damage, he was liable in the action, unless it appeared that the same was not being run by him, or his agent, at the time of the explosion. The proposition propounded was, that a person is responsible for the immediate consequences of the bursting of a steam boiler, in use by him, irrespective of any question as to negligence or want of skill on his part.

This view of the law is in accordance with the principles maintained, with great learning and force of reasoning, in some of the late English decisions. In this class the leading case was that of Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Exch. 265, which was a suit on account of damage done by water escaping on to the premises of the plaintiff from a reservoir which the defendant had constructed, with due care and skill, on his own land. The judgment was put on a general ground, for the Court said: “We think 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.” This result was deemed just, and was sought to be vindicated on the theory that it is but reasonable that a person 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. This principle would evidently apply to, and rule, the present case: for water is no more likely to escape from a reservoir and do damage, than steam is from a boiler; and, therefore, if he who collects the former force upon his property, and seeks, with care and skill, to keep it there, is answerable for his want of success, so is he who, under similar conditions, endeavors to deal with the latter. There is nothing unlawful in introducing water into a properly constructed reservoir on a person’s own land, nor raising steam in a boiler of proper quality; neither act, when performed, is a nuisance _per se_; and the inquiry consequently is, whether in the doing of such lawful act the party who does it is an insurer against all flaws in the apparatus employed, no matter how secret, or unascertainable by the use of every reasonable test, such flaws may be. This English adjudication takes the affirmative side of the question, conceding, however, that the subject is not controlled by any express decision, and that it is to be investigated with reference to the general grounds of jurisprudence. I have said the doctrine involved has been learnedly treated, and the decision is of great weight, and yet its reasoning has failed to convince me of the correctness of the result to which it leads, and such result is clearly opposed to the course which judicial opinion has taken in this country. The fallacy in the process of argument by which judgment is reached in this case of Fletcher _v._ Rylands, appears to me to consist in this: that the rule mainly applicable to a class of cases which, I think, should be regarded as, in a great degree, exceptional, is amplified and extended into a general, if not universal, principle. The principal instance upon which reliance is placed is the well-known obligation of the owner of cattle, to prevent them from escaping from his land and doing mischief. The law as to this point is perfectly settled, and has been settled from the earliest times, and is to the effect that the owner must take charge of his cattle at his peril, and if they evade his custody he is, in some measure, responsible for the consequences. This is the doctrine of the Year Books, but I do not find that it is grounded in any theoretical principle, making a man answerable for his acts or omissions, without regard to his culpability. That in this particular case of escaping cattle so stringent an obligation upon the owner should grow up, was not unnatural. That the beasts of the landowner should be successfully restrained, was a condition of considerable importance to the unmolested enjoyment of property, and the right to plead that the escape had occurred by inevitable accident would have seriously impaired, if it did not entirely frustrate, the process of distress damage feasant. Custom has had much to do in giving shape to the law, and what is highly convenient readily runs into usage, and is accepted as a rule. It would but rarely occur that cattle would escape from a vigilant owner, and in this instance such rare exceptions seem to have passed unnoticed, for there appears to be no example of the point having been presented for judicial consideration; for the conclusion of the liability of the unnegligent owner rests in _dicta_, and not in express decision. But waiving this, there is a consideration which seems to me to show that this obligation which is put upon the owner of errant cattle should not be taken to be a principle applicable, in a general way, to the use or ownership of property, which is this: that the owner of such cattle is, after all, liable only _sub modo_ for the injury done by them, that is, he is responsible, with regard to tame beasts who have no exceptionally vicious disposition so far as is known, for the grass they eat, and such like injuries, but not for the hurt they may inflict upon the person of others,—a restriction on liability which is hardly consistent with the notion that this class of cases proceeds from a principle so wide as to embrace all persons whose lawful acts produce, without fault in them, and in an indirect manner, ill results which disastrously affect innocent persons. If the principle ruling these cases was so broad as this, conformity to it would require that the person being the cause of the mischief should stand as an indemnifier against the whole of the damage. It appears to me, therefore, that this rule, which applies to damage done by straying cattle, was carried beyond its true bounds, when it was appealed to [in] proof that a person in law is answerable for the natural consequences of his acts, such acts being lawful in themselves, and having been done with proper care and skill.

The only other cases which were referred to in support of the judgment under consideration were those of one who was sued for not keeping the wall of his privy in repair, to the detriment of his neighbor, being the case of Tenant _v._ Goulding, 1 Salk. 21, and several actions which it is said had been brought against the owners of some alkali works for damages alleged to have been caused by the chlorine fumes escaping from their works [which], the case showed, had been erected upon the best scientific principles. But I am compelled to think that these cases are but a slender basis for the large structure put upon it. The case of Tenant _v._ Goulding presented merely the question whether a landowner is bound in favor of his neighbor to keep the wall of his privy in repair, and the Court held that he was, and that he was responsible if, for want of such reparation, the filth escaped on the adjoining land. No question was mooted as to his liability in case the privy had been constructed with care and skill with a view to prevent the escape of its contents, and had been kept in a state of repair. Not to repair a receptacle of this kind when it was in want of repairs was, in itself, a _prima facie_ case of negligence, and it seems to me that all the Court decided was to hold so.

But this consideration is also to be noticed, both with respect to this last case, and that of the injurious fumes from the alkali works, that in truth they stand somewhat by themselves, and having this peculiarity: that the things in their nature partake largely of the character of nuisances. Take the alkali works as an example. Placed in a town, under ordinary circumstances, they would be a nuisance. When the attempt is made by scientific methods to prevent the escape of the fumes, it is an attempt to legalize that which is illegal, and the consequence is, it may well be held that, failing in the attempt, the nuisance remains.

I cannot agree that, from these indications, the broad doctrine is to be drawn that a man in law is an insurer that the acts which he does, such acts being lawful and done with care, shall not injuriously affect others. The decisions cited are not so much examples of legal maxims as of exceptions to such maxims; for they stand opposed, and in contrast to principles, which it seems to me must be considered much more general in their operation and elementary in their nature.

The common rule, quite institutional in its character, is that, in order to sustain an action for a tort, the damage complained of must have come from a wrongful act. Mr. Addison, in his work on Torts, Vol. I, p. 3, very correctly states this rule. He says: “A man may, however, sustain grievous damage at the hands of another, and yet, if it be the result of inevitable accident, or a lawful act, done in a lawful manner, without any carelessness or negligence, there is no legal injury, and no tort giving rise to an action of damages.” Among other examples, he refers to an act of force, done in necessary self-defence, causing injury to an innocent bystander, which he characterizes as _damnum sine injuria_,—“for no man does wrong or contracts guilt in defending himself against an aggressor.” Other instances of a like kind are noted, such as the lawful obstruction of the view from the windows of dwelling-houses; or the turning aside, to the detriment of another, the current of the sea or river, by means of walls or dikes. Many illustrations, of the same bearing, are to be found scattered through the books of reports. Thus, Dyer, 25 b, says: “That if a man have a dog which has killed sheep, the master of the dog being ignorant of such quality and property of the dog, the master shall not be punished for that killing.” This case belongs to a numerous, well-known class, where animals which are usually harmless do damage, the decisions being that, under such conditions, the owners of the animals are not responsible. Akin to these in principle are cases of injuries done to innocent persons by horses in the charge of their owners, becoming ungovernable by reason of unexpected causes; or where a person in a dock was struck by the falling of a bale of cotton which the defendants’ servants were lowering, Scott _v._ London Dock Co., 3 H. & C. 596; or in cases of collision, either on land or sea. Hammack _v._ White, 11 C. B. n. s. 588.

It is true that these cases of injury done to personal property, or to persons, are, in the case of Fletcher _v._ Rylands, sought to be distinguished from other damages, on the ground that they are done in the course of traffic on the highways, whether by land or sea, which cannot be conducted without exposing those whose persons or property are near it to some inevitable risk. But this explanation is not sufficiently comprehensive, for, if a frightened horse should, in his flight, break into an inclosure, no matter how far removed from the highway, the owner would not be answerable for the damage done. Nor is the reason upon which it rests satisfactory, for, if traffic cannot be carried on without some risk, why can it not be said with the same truth, that the other affairs of life, though they be transacted away from the highways, cannot be carried on without some risk; and if such risk is, in the one case, to be borne by innocent persons, why not in the other? Business done upon private property may be a part of traffic as well as that done by the means of the highway, and no reason is perceived why the same favor is not to be extended to it in both situations. But, besides this, the reason thus assigned for the immunity of him who is the unwilling producer of the damage has not been the ground on which the decisions illustrative of the rule have been put; that ground has been that the person sought to be charged had not done any unlawful act. Everywhere, in all the branches of the law, the general principle that blame must be imputable as a ground of responsibility for damage proceeding from a lawful act, is apparent. A passenger is injured by the breaking of an axle of a public conveyance; the carrier is not liable, unless negligence can be shown. A man’s guest is hurt by the falling of a chandelier; a suit will not lie against the host, without proof that he knew, or ought to have known of the existence of the danger. If the steam-engine which did the mischief in the present case had been in use in driving a train of cars on a railroad, and had, in that situation, exploded, and had inflicted injuries on travellers or by-standers, it could not have been pretended that such damage was actionable, in the absence of the element of negligence or unskilfulness. By changing the place of the accident to private property, I cannot agree that a different rule obtains.

It seems to me, therefore, that in this case it was necessary to submit the matter, as a question of fact for the jury, whether the occurrence doing the damage complained of, was the product of pure accident, or the result of want of care or skill on the part of the defendant or his agents.

This view of the subject is taken in the American decisions. A case, in all respects in point, is that of Losee _v._ Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476; S. C. 10 Am. Rep. 623. The facts were essentially the same with those of the principal case. It was an action growing out of the explosion of a steam boiler upon private property, and the ruling was that such action could not be sustained without proof of fault or negligence. In that report the line of cases is so fully set out that it is unnecessary here to repeat them.

_The rule should be made absolute._[294]

BROWN _v._ COLLINS
SUPREME COURT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, JUNE, 1873.
_Reported in 53 New Hampshire Reports, 442._

Trespass, by Albert H. Brown against Lester Collins, to recover the value of a stone post on which was a street lamp, situated in front of his place of business in the village of Tilton. The post stood upon the plaintiff’s land, but near the southerly line of the main highway leading through the village and within four feet of said line. There was nothing to indicate the line of the highway, nor any fence or other obstruction between the highway, as travelled, and the post. The highway crosses the railroad near the place of accident, and the stone post stood about fifty feet from the railroad track at the crossing. The defendant was in the highway, at or near the railroad crossing, with a pair of horses loaded with grain, going to the grist-mill in Tilton village. The horses became frightened by an engine on the railroad near the crossing, and by reason thereof became unmanageable, and ran, striking the post with the end of the pole and breaking it off near the ground, destroying the lamp with the post. No other injury was done by the accident. The shock produced by the collision with the post threw the defendant from his seat in the wagon, and he struck on the ground between the horses, but suffered no injury except a slight concussion. The defendant was in the use of ordinary care and skill in managing his team, until they became frightened as aforesaid.

The foregoing facts were agreed upon for the purpose of raising the question of the right of the plaintiff to recover in this action.

DOE, J. It is agreed that the defendant was in the use of ordinary care and skill in managing his horses, until they were frightened; and that they then became unmanageable, and ran against and broke a post on the plaintiff’s land. It is not explicitly stated that the defendant was without actual fault,—that he was not guilty of any malice, or unreasonable unskilfulness or negligence; but it is to be inferred that the fact was so; and we decide the case on that ground. We take the case as one where, without actual fault in the defendant, his horses broke from his control, ran away with him, went upon the plaintiff’s land, and did damage there, against the will, intent, and desire of the defendant.

Sir Thomas Raymond’s report of Lambert & Olliot _v._ Bessey, T. Raym. 421, and Bessey _v._ Olliot & Lambert, T. Raym. 467, is, “The question was this: A gaoler takes from the bailiff a prisoner arrested by him out of the bailiff’s jurisdiction, Whether the gaoler be liable to an action of false imprisonment? and the judges of the common pleas did all hold that he was; and of that opinion I am, for these reasons.

“1. In all civil acts, the law doth not so much regard the intent of the actor, as the loss and damage of the party suffering; and therefore Mich. 6 E. 4, 7 _a. pl._ 18. _Trespass quare vi & armis clausum fregit & herbam suam pedibus conculcando consumpsit_ in six acres. The defendant pleads that he hath an acre lying next the said six acres, and upon it a hedge of thorns, and he cut the thorns, and they, _ipso invito_, fell upon the plaintiff’s land, and the defendant took them off as soon as he could, which is the same trespass; and the plaintiff demurred; and adjudged for the plaintiff; for though a man doth a lawful thing, yet if any damage do thereby befall another, he shall answer for it if he could have avoided it. As if a man lop a tree, and the boughs fall upon another, _ipso invito_, yet an action lies. If a man shoot at butts, and hurt another unawares, an action lies. I have land through which a river runs to your mill, and I lop the fallows growing upon the river side, which accidentally stop the water, so as your mill is hindered, an action lies. If I am building my own house, and a piece of timber falls on my neighbor’s house, and breaks part of it, an action lies. If a man assault me, and I lift up my staff to defend myself, and, in lifting it up, hit another, an action lies by that person, and yet I did a lawful thing. And the reason of all these cases is, because he that is damaged ought to be recompensed. But otherwise it is in criminal cases, for there _actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea_.

“Mich. 23. Car. 1. B. R.—Stile 72, Guilbert _versus_ Stone. Trespass for entering his close, and taking away his horse. The defendant pleads, that he, for fear of his life, by threats of twelve men, went into the plaintiff’s house, and took the horse. The plaintiff demurred; and adjudged for the plaintiff, because threats could not excuse the defendant, and make satisfaction to the plaintiff.

“Hob. 134, Weaver _versus_ Ward. Trespass of assault and battery. The defendant pleads, that he was a trained soldier in London, and he and the plaintiff were skirmishing with their company, and the defendant, with his musket, _casualiter & per infortunium & contra voluntatem suam_ in discharging of his gun hurt the plaintiff; and resolved no good plea. So here, though the defendant knew not of the wrongful taking of the plaintiff, yet that will not make any recompense for the wrong the plaintiff hath sustained.... But the three other judges resolved, that the defendant, the gaoler, could not be charged, because he could not have notice whether the prisoner was legally arrested or not.”

In Fletcher _v._ Rylands,[295] L. R. 3 H. L. 330, Lord Cranworth said: “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.”

The head-note of Weaver _v._ Ward. Hob. 134, is: “If one trained soldier wound another, in skirmishing for exercise, an action of trespass will lie, unless it shall appear from the defendant’s plea that he was guilty of no negligence, and that the injury was inevitable.” The reason of the decision, as reported, was this: “For though it were agreed, that if men tilt or tourney in the presence of the king, or if two masters of defence playing their prizes kill one another, that this shall be no felony; or if a lunatic kill a man, or the like; because felony must be done _animo felonico_; yet in trespass, which tends only to give damages according to hurt or loss, it is not so; and therefore if a lunatic hurt a man, he shall be answerable in trespass; and therefore no man shall be excused of a trespass (for this is the nature of an excuse, and not of a justification, _prout ei bene licuit_), except it may be judged utterly without his fault; as if a man by force take my hand and strike you; or if here the defendant had said that the plaintiff ran across his piece when it was discharging; or had set forth the case with the circumstances, so as it had appeared to the Court that it had been inevitable, and that the defendant had committed no negligence to give occasion to the hurt.”

There may be some ground to argue that “utterly without his fault,” “inevitable,” and “no negligence,” in the sense intended, in that case, mean no more than the modern phrase “ordinary and reasonable care and prudence;” and that, in such a case, at the present time, to hold a plea good that alleges the exercise of reasonable care, without setting forth all “the circumstances” or evidence sustaining the plea, would be substantially in compliance with the law of that case, due allowance being made for the difference of legal language used at different periods, and the difference in the forms of pleading. But the drift of the ancient English authorities on the law of torts seems to differ materially from the view now prevailing in this country. Formerly, in England, there seems to have been no well-defined test of an actionable tort. Defendants were often held liable “because,” as Raymond says, “he that is damaged ought to be recompensed;” and not because, upon some clearly stated principle of law founded on actual culpability, public policy, or natural justice, he was entitled to compensation from the defendant. The law was supposed to regard “the loss and damage of the party suffering,” more than the negligence and blameworthiness of the defendant: but how much more it regarded the former than the latter, was a question not settled, and very little investigated. “The loss and damage of the party suffering,” if without relief, would be a hardship to him; relief compulsorily furnished by the other party would often be a hardship to him; when and why the “loss and damage” should, and when and why they should not, be transferred from one to the other, by process of law, were problems not solved in a philosophical manner. There were precedents, established upon superficial, crude, and undigested notions; but no application of the general system of legal reason to this subject.

Mr. Holmes says: “It may safely be stated that all the more ancient examples are traceable to conceptions of a much ruder sort (than actual fault), and in modern times to more or less definitely thought-out views of public policy. The old writs in trespass did not allege, nor was it necessary to show, anything savoring of culpability. It was enough that a certain event had happened, and it was not even necessary that the act should be done intentionally, though innocently. An accidental blow was as good a cause of action as an intentional one. On the other hand, when, as in Rylands _v._ Fletcher, modern courts hold a man liable for the escape of water from a reservoir which he has built upon his land, or for the escape of cattle, although he is not alleged to have been negligent, they do not proceed upon the ground that there is an element of culpability in making such a reservoir, or in keeping cattle, sufficient to charge the defendant as soon as a _damnum_ occurs, but on the principle that it is politic to make those who go into extra-hazardous employments take the risk on their own shoulders.” He alludes to the fact that “there is no certainty what will be thought extra-hazardous in a certain jurisdiction at a certain time,” but suggests that many particular instances point to the general principle of liability for the consequences of extra-hazardous undertakings as the tacitly assumed ground of decision 7 Am. Law Rev. 652, 653, 662; 2 Kent Com. (12th ed.) 561, _n._ 1; 4 _id._ 110, n. 1. If the hazardous nature of things or of acts is adopted as the test, or one of the tests, and the English authorities are taken as the standard of what is to be regarded as hazardous, “it will be necessary to go the length of saying that an owner of real property is liable for all damage resulting to his neighbor’s property from anything done upon his own land” (Mellish’s argument in Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Ex. 272), and that an individual is answerable “who, for his own benefit, makes an improvement on his own land, according to his best skill and diligence, and not foreseeing it will produce any injury to his neighbor, if he thereby unwittingly injure his neighbor”—Gibbs, C. J., in Sutton _v._ Clarke, 6 Taunt. 44, approved by Blackburn, J., in Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Ex. 286. If danger is adopted as a test, and the English authorities are abandoned, the fact of danger, controverted in each case, will present a question for the jury, and expand the issue of tort or no tort into a question of reasonableness, in a form much broader than has been generally used; or courts will be left to devise tests of peril, under varying influences of time and place that may not immediately produce a uniform, consistent, and permanent rule.

It would seem that some of the early English decisions were based on a view as narrow as that which regards nothing but the hardship “of the party suffering;” disregards the question whether, by transferring the hardship to the other party, anything more will be done than substitute one suffering party for another; and does not consider what legal reason can be given for relieving the party who has suffered, by making another suffer the expense of his relief. For some of those decisions, better reasons may now be given than were thought of when the decisions were announced: but whether a satisfactory test of an actionable tort can be extracted from the ancient authorities, and whether the few modern cases that carry out the doctrine of those authorities as far as it is carried in Fletcher _v._ Rylands (3 H. & C. 774; L. R. 1 Ex. 265; L. R. 3 H. L. 330) can be sustained, is very doubtful. The current of American authority is very strongly against some of the leading English cases.

One of the strongest presentations of the extreme English view is by Blackburn, J., who says, in Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Ex. 279, 280, 281, 282: “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 [or he might have added, dogs to bite],—but if the owner knows that the beast has a vicious propensity to attack man, he will be answerable for that too.... In these latter authorities [relating to animals called mischievous or ferocious], 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.... 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.”