CHAPTER III

UNINTENDED NON-NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE

SECTION I TRESPASS ON LAND BY ANIMALS

NOYES _v._ COLBY SUPREME COURT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, JULY TERM, 1855. _Reported in 30 New Hampshire Reports, 143._

Trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close in Franklin.

Plea, general issue.

The plaintiff proved that towards night, on June 27, the defendant’s cow was upon his premises grazing, between his house and stable. There was no fence between his land and the highway.

The defendant then proposed to prove that, at that time he pastured his cow in a pasture, on the road to Salisbury, and that one Heath also pastured his cow in the same pasture. On the evening in question, when Heath drove home his own cow, he also let the defendant’s cow out of the pasture. He did this without the knowledge or assent of the defendant, and without any authority, and had never done so before, and after this transaction was requested by the defendant not to do so again. He drove the cow down the road until she came to the point where it connects with the road through the village of Franklin, about two hundred feet from the plaintiff’s land, when she strayed along the road and committed the trespass complained of.

The defendant contended that, under such circumstances he could not be held to be a trespasser merely from the fact that he owned the cow; that he had done no wrongful or improper act; that the act of Heath, being without his knowledge or assent, and without his authority, could not make him liable in trespass; that the action should not have been brought against him, but if any trespass had been committed, should have been brought against Heath.

There being no dispute about the facts, the Court ruled that the action could not be maintained; whereupon a verdict was taken for the defendant, upon which judgment was to be rendered, or it was to be set aside, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for twenty-five cents damages, as this Court might order.[251]

WOODS, C. J. “A man is answerable for not only his own trespass, but that of his cattle also; for if by his negligent keeping they stray upon the land of another (and much more if he permits or drives them on), and they there tread down his neighbor’s herbage, and spoil his corn or his trees, this is a trespass for which the owner must answer in damages.” 3 Black. Com. 211. Such is the law as stated in the words of the author of the Commentaries, which are themselves very high authority on such subjects, and such has been the uniform practice and understanding of the law in all times, so far as the books show, and it is therefore too late to inquire whether the remedy by an action of trespass is founded upon the strictest logical propriety, where the cause of the damage is the negligence, and not the wilful act of the owner of the mischievous beasts.

It is hardly necessary to remark, but for the course of the defendant’s argument, that the proposition quoted from Blackstone relates to the case in which the beasts “stray upon, the land of another,” and not to the case in which they are driven upon it by a stranger; for then the stranger is the author of the wrong, and the horse that he rides, or drives, is the mere passive instrument in his hands, and the owner of it, unless he have lent it for the purpose of the wrong, is as wholly guiltless as any other person. For in that case, the beast does not by the owner’s negligent keeping stray upon the land of his neighbors.

It is substantially upon this ground that Tewksbury _v._ Bucklin, 7 N. H. Rep. 518, was decided; in which it was held that a party having the custody of the cattle was answerable for the trespass which they committed by straying upon another’s inclosure.

The case finds that the cow “strayed along the road,” and committed the

## act complained of. It would not be just to hold the party to the strict

meaning of a single word, if it appeared by the context to have been used inaccurately; but it appears distinctly that the animal, although driven by Heath some distance from the pasture in the direction of the _locus in quo_, was not driven upon it so as to be in his hands a mere instrument for committing a trespass. Heath’s trespass was upon the chattel of the defendant, but not upon the soil of the plaintiff. He abandoned the cow, and she being no longer in his custody, “strayed,” and involved the owner in the consequences ordinarily incident to permitting beasts to stray into the inclosures of others.

When Heath abandoned the cow, she was about twelve rods from the lands of the plaintiff. From that period she was no longer under the control of Heath, but was again in the legal possession of the defendant, and under his general custody and control; and like other owners having the care and custody of their beasts at the time, he is answerable in trespass for her act in straying upon the close in question, and grazing there.

* * * * *

For misdirection of the judge who tried the cause, the verdict must be set aside, and a

_New trial granted_.[252]

BEARDSLEY, C. J., IN TONAWANDA R. CO. _v._ MUNGER (1848) _5 Denio, 255, 267–268_.

The Court seem to have held that if the plaintiff’s oxen escaped from his enclosure after the exercise of “ordinary care and prudence in taking care of” them, he was not responsible for their trespass on the defendants’ land. This view of the law, we think, cannot be sustained. The plaintiff was bound at his peril to keep his cattle at home, or at all events to keep them out of the defendants’ close, and no degree of “care and prudence,” if the cattle found their way onto the defendants’ land, would excuse the trespass. It would be a new feature in the law of trespass, if the owner of cattle could escape responsibility for their trespasses by showing he had used “ordinary,” or even extraordinary “care and prudence” to keep them from doing mischief.[253]

TILLETT _v._ WARD IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION, NOVEMBER 27, 1882. _Reported in Law Reports, 10 Queen’s Bench Division, 17._

Appeal by special case from the decision of the judge of the County Court of Lincolnshire, holden at Stamford.

The action was to recover £1 for the damage done to goods in the plaintiff’s shop.

It appeared that on the 15th of May, 1882, an ox of the defendant was being driven from the live-stock market in Broad Street, Stamford, along a public street called Ironmonger Street, to the defendant’s premises. Ironmonger Street has a paved carriage road with a foot pavement on either side, and the plaintiff was the occupier of an ironmonger’s shop in the street. The ox, after having gone for some distance down the paved carriage road of Ironmonger Street, driven by the defendant’s men, went for a short distance upon the foot pavement on the near or left-hand side, and was driven therefrom by one of the drovers in charge on to the carriage road, and after continuing for a farther distance upon such carriage road, turned again on the pavement about twelve yards from the plaintiff’s shop, and continued upon the pavement until it came opposite the plaintiff’s shop, when it passed through the open doorway into the shop and did damage to goods therein to the amount claimed. The ox was, as soon as possible after such entry and damage, driven by the defendant’s men from the shop to the carriage road and to defendant’s premises in another street; but they did not succeed in getting it out until about three-quarters of an hour from the time when it entered. No special act of negligence was proved on the part of the persons in charge of the ox, and there was no evidence that it was of a vicious or unruly nature, or that the defendant had any notice that there was anything exceptional in its temper or character, or that it would be unsafe to drive it through the public streets in the ordinary and usual way. It was proved that at the time the ox left the carriage-way the second time, one of the two men of the defendant in charge of the animal was walking by its side, having his hand upon it, and that the other man was walking about three yards in the rear of it. The two men in charge proved that they drove it unaccompanied by other cattle from the market, and they both declared that they did all they could under the circumstances to prevent it going on to the foot pavement and entering the open doorway of the plaintiff’s shop, and they stated that the movement of the ox from the carriage-way on to the foot pavement was sudden and could not by any reasonable or available means have been prevented. It was alleged by the defendant’s witnesses, and not contradicted, that it was a usual thing for several oxen to be driven from the Stamford market in charge of two men, and sometimes one man. It was admitted that it was not customary to drive oxen with halters, and that they would probably not go quietly if led by halters.

The County Court judge gave a verdict for the amount claimed, giving the defendant leave to appeal.

The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether upon the facts the plaintiff was entitled to the verdict.[254]

LORD COLERIDGE, C. J. In this action the County Court judge has found as a fact that there was no negligence on the part of the drivers of the ox, or, at all events, he has not found that there was negligence, and as it lies on the plaintiff to make out his case, the charge of negligence, so far as it has any bearing on the matter, must be taken to have failed.

Now, it is clear as a general rule that the owner of cattle and sheep is bound to keep them from trespassing on his neighbor’s land, and if they so trespass an action for damages may be brought against him, irrespective of whether the trespass was or was not the result of his negligence. It is also tolerably clear that where both parties are upon the highway, where each of them has a right to be, and one of them is injured by the trespass of an animal belonging to the other, he must, in order to maintain his action, show that the trespass was owing to the negligence of the other or of his servant. It is also clear that where a man is injured by a fierce or vicious animal belonging to another, that _prima facie_ no action can be brought without proof that the owner of the animal knew of its mischievous tendencies.

In the present case the trespass, if there was any, was committed off the highway upon the plaintiff’s close, which immediately adjoined the highway, by an animal belonging to the defendant which was being driven on the highway. No negligence is proved, and it would seem to follow from the law that I have previously stated that the defendant is not responsible. We find it established as an exception upon the general law of trespass, that where cattle trespass upon unfenced land immediately adjoining a highway the owner of the land must bear the loss. This is shown by the judgment of Bramwell, B., in Goodwyn _v._ Cheveley, 28 L. J. (Ex.) 298. That learned judge goes into the question whether a reasonable time had or had not elapsed for the removal of cattle who had trespassed under similar circumstances, and this question would not have arisen if a mere momentary trespass had been by itself actionable. There is also the statement of Blackburn, J., in Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Ex. 265, that persons who have property adjacent to a highway may be taken to hold it subject to the risk of injury from inevitable risk. I could not, therefore, if I were disposed, question law laid down by such eminent authorities, but I quite concur in their view, and I see no distinction for this purpose between a field in the country and a street in a market town. The accident to the plaintiff was one of the necessary and inevitable risks which arise from driving cattle in the streets in or out of town. No cause of action is shown, and the judgment of the County Court judge must be reversed.

STEPHEN, J. I am of the same opinion. As I understand the law, when a man has placed his cattle in a field it is his duty to keep them from trespassing on the land of his neighbors, but while he is driving them upon a highway he is not responsible, without proof of negligence on his part, for any injury they may do upon the highway, for they cannot then be said to be trespassing. The case of Goodwyn _v._ Cheveley, _supra_, seems to me to establish a further exception, that the owner of the cattle is not responsible without negligence when the injury is done to property adjoining the highway,—an exception which is absolutely necessary for the conduct of the common affairs of life. We have been invited to limit this exception to the case of high roads adjoining fields in the country, but I am very unwilling to multiply exceptions, and I can see no solid distinction between the case of an animal straying into a field which is unfenced or into an open shop in a town. I think the rule to be gathered from Goodwyn _v._ Cheveley, _supra_, a very reasonable one, for otherwise I cannot see how we could limit the liability of the owner of the cattle for any sort of injury which could be traced to them.

_Judgment for defendant._[255]

COOLEY ON TORTS, 2D ED., 398–400.

The statutes which, under some circumstances, or for some purposes, require lands to be fenced by their owners, are so various in the several States that it is not easy even to classify them. Some of them provide merely that unless the owner shall cause his lands to be fenced with such a fence as is particularly described, he shall maintain no action for the trespasses of beasts upon them. These statutes are generally limited in their force to exterior fences, and are intended as a part of a system under which cattle are or may be allowed to depasture the highway. In some States, from the earliest days, beasts have been allowed to roam at large in the highways and unenclosed lands, either by general law or on a vote of the township or county to that effect; a futile permission, if owners of lands are not required to fence against them. A more common provision is one requiring the owners of adjoining premises to keep up, respectively, one-half the partition fence between them, this being apportioned for the purpose by agreement, by prescription, or by the order of fence-viewers. A neglect of duty under these statutes would not only preclude the party in fault from maintaining suit for injuries suffered by himself in consequence thereof, but it would seem that if the domestic animals of his neighbor should wander upon his lands, invited by his own neglect, and should there fall into pits, or otherwise receive injury, he would be responsible for this injury, as one occurring proximately from his own default. The statutes which require the construction of partition fences do so for the benefit exclusively of the adjoining proprietors. These proprietors may, at their option, by agreement, dispense with them, and even if they do not agree to do so, but fail to maintain them as the law contemplates, still, if the cattle of the third persons come wrongfully upon one man’s lands, and from there enter the adjoining enclosure, it is no answer to an action of trespass brought by the owner of the latter that the partition fence provided for by the law was not maintained.[256]

WAGNER _v._ BISSELL SUPREME COURT, IOWA, DECEMBER TERM, 1856. _Reported in 3 Iowa Reports, 396._

Appeal from the Jones District Court.

This was an action of replevin for certain cattle. Defendant answered, denying the plaintiff’s right to the possession, and also alleging as a special ground of defence, that said cattle (which he admits to be the property of plaintiff) did on the 17th day of August, 1856, trespass upon the uninclosed land of defendant, and while so trespassing, and after he had suffered damage to the amount of fifty dollars, he, said defendant, distrained the same, as he had a right to do; and while thus lawfully distrained, and while he thus rightfully had the possession, the said plaintiff replevied the said cattle, without paying, or offering to pay, for the damages sustained. To this answer the plaintiff demurred, which was sustained. Defendant refused to answer over, and judgment being against him, he appeals.[257]

WRIGHT, C. J. [After deciding a point of pleading.] There is then but one question in the case, and that is, whether the defendant, for the reasons stated in his answer, was entitled to the possession of the property, as against the plaintiff and owner. We are of opinion that he was not, and that the demurrer was therefore properly sustained.

That at common law, every man was bound to keep his cattle within his own close, under the penalty of answering in damage for all injuries arising from their being abroad, is admitted by all. And a part of the same rule is, that the owner of land is not bound to protect his premises from the intrusion of the cattle of a stranger, or third person; and that if such cattle shall intrude or trespass upon his premises, whether inclosed or not, he may, at his election, bring his

## action to recover the damages sustained, or distrain such trespassing

animals, until compensated for such injury. We need not at present stop to ascertain the origin or reason of this rule. It is sufficient to say, that as a principle of the common law, it is well, and we believe universally settled. We are then led to inquire, whether, independent of any statutory provisions, this rule is applicable to our condition and circumstances as a people; and if it is, then whether it has or has not, been changed by legislative action.

Unlike many of the States, we have no statute declaring in express terms the common law to be in force in this State. That it is, however, has been frequently decided by this Court, and does not, perhaps, admit of controversy. But while this is true, it must be understood that it is adopted only so far as it is _applicable_ to us as a people, and may be of a general nature. At this time we need only discuss the question whether the principle contended for is applicable; for there can be no fair ground for claiming that it is not of a general nature.

We have assumed that it is only so much of the common law as is _applicable_ that can be said to be in force, or recognized as a rule of

## action in this State. To say that every principle of that law, however

inapplicable to our wants or institutions, is to continue in force, until changed by some legislative rule, we believe has never been claimed, neither indeed could it be, with any degree of reason. What is meant however, by the term “applicable,” has been thought to admit of some controversy. As stated by Catron, J., in the dissenting opinion in the case of Seely _v._ Peters, 5 Gilm. 130, “Does it mean applicable to the nature of our political institutions, and to the genius of our republican form of government, and to our Constitution, or to our domestic habits, our wants, and our necessities?” He then maintains that the former only is meant, and that to adopt the latter is a clear usurpation of legislative power by the courts. A majority of the Court held in that case, however, as had been previously decided in Boyer _v._ Sweet, 3 Scam. 121, “that in adopting the common law, it must be applicable to the habits and condition of our society, and in harmony with the genius, spirit, and objects of our institutions.” And we can see no just or fair objection to this view of the subject. Indeed, there would seem to be much propriety in saying that the distinction attempted is more speculative than practical or real. For what is applicable to our wants, habits, and necessities as a community or state, must necessarily to some extent be determined from the nature and genius of our government and institutions. Or, in other words, to determine whether a particular principle harmonizes with the spirit of our institutions, we must look to the habits and condition of the society which has created and lived under these institutions. We have adopted a republican form of government, because we believe it to be better suited to our condition, as it is to that of all people,—and thereunder we believe our wants, rights, and necessities, as individuals and as a community, are more likely to be protected and provided for. And the conclusion would seem to fairly follow, that a principle or rule which tends to provide for, and protect our rights and wants, would harmonize with that form of government or those institutions which have grown up under it.

But, however this may be, we do not believe that in determining as a Court, whether a particular rule of the unwritten law is applicable, we are confined alone to its agreement or disagreement with our peculiar form of government. To make the true distinction between the rules which are, and are not, applicable, may be frequently embarrassing and difficult to courts.

Where the common law has been repealed or changed by the constitutions of either the States or national government, or by their legislative enactments, it is, of course, not binding. So also, it is safe to say, that where it has been varied by custom, not founded in reason, or not consonant to the genius and manners of the people, it ceases to have force. Bouvier’s Law Dict., title Law, Common. And in accordance with this position, are the following authorities: “The common law of England is not to be taken in all respects to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation.” Van Ness _v._ Packard, 2 Peters, 137. And see other remarks of the learned judge, in delivering the opinion in that case, page 143, which have a bearing upon the principal question involved in this.

In Goring _v._ Emery, 16 Pick. 107, in speaking of what parts of the common law and the statutes of England are to be taken as in force in Massachusetts, Shaw, C. J., says: “That what are to be deemed in force is often a question of difficulty, depending upon the nature of the subject, the difference between the character of our institutions, and our general course of policy, and those of the parent country, and upon fitness and usage.” And in The Commonwealth _v._ Knowlton, 2 Mass. 534, it is said that “our ancestors, when they came into this new world, claimed the common law as their birthright, and brought it with them, except such parts as were adjudged inapplicable to their new state and condition.”

In Ohio the rule is laid down as follows: “It has been repeatedly decided by the courts of this State that they will adopt the principles of the common law, as the rule of decision, so far only as those principles are adapted to our circumstances, state of society, and form of government.” Lindsley _v._ Coats, 1 Ham. 243; see also Penny _v._ Little, 3 Scam. 301.

Is the rule of the common law, relied upon by the appellant in this case, applicable to our situation, condition, and usage, as a people? Is it in accordance with our habits, wants, and necessities? As applied to this State, is it founded in reason and the fitness of things? The legislature has certainly not so regarded it. On the contrary, we hope to be able to show that what legislation we have clearly recognizes the opposite rule. At present, we are considering the question without reference to any legislative interpretation or action.

These same inquiries were substantially discussed in the case of Seely _v._ Peters, above referred to; and as we could not hope to answer them more satisfactorily than is there done, we adopt the language used in that case, the appropriateness of which, as applied to this State, will be fully appreciated when we reflect that in their resources and necessities, Illinois and Iowa are almost twin sisters. Both alike are agricultural States—both alike have large and extensive prairies—and are alike destitute of timber, as compared with the eastern and older States of the Union.

Says Trumbull, J., in delivering that opinion: “However well adapted the rule of the common law may be to a densely populated country like England, it is surely but ill-adapted to a new country like ours. If this common-law rule prevails now, it must have prevailed from the time of the earliest settlement of the State, and can it be supposed that when the early settlers of this country located upon the borders of our extensive prairies, that they brought with them, and adopted as applicable to their condition, a rule of law requiring each one to fence up his cattle? that they designed the millions of fertile acres stretched out before them, to go ungrazed, except as each purchaser from the government was able to inclose his part with a fence? This State is unlike any of the eastern States in their early settlement, because, from the scarcity of timber, it must be many years yet before our extensive prairies can be fenced; and their luxuriant growth, sufficient for thousands of cattle, must be suffered to rot and decay where it grows, unless settlers upon their borders are permitted to turn their cattle upon them. Perhaps there is no principle of the common law so inapplicable to the condition of our country and the people as the one which is sought to be enforced now, for the first time, since the settlement of the State. It has been the custom of Illinois, so long that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, for the owners of stock to suffer them to run at large. Settlers have located themselves contiguous to prairies, for the very purpose of getting the benefit of the range. The right of all to pasture their cattle upon uninclosed ground is universally conceded. No man has questioned this right, although hundreds of cases must have occurred where the owners of cattle have escaped the payment of damages on account of the insufficiency of the fences through which their stock have broken; and never till now has the common-law rule that the owner of cattle is bound to fence them up been suffered to prevail, or to be applicable to our condition. The universal understanding of all classes of community, upon which they have acted by inclosing their crops and letting their cattle run at large, is entitled to no little consideration in determining what the law is; and we should feel inclined to hold, independent of any statutes upon the subject, on account of the inapplicability of the common-law rule to the condition and circumstances of our people, that it does not, and never has, prevailed in Illinois.”

The learned judge then proceeds to show that it is not necessary to assume that ground in the case before him, for the reason, as he says, that their entire legislation clearly shows that this rule of the common law never prevailed in that State. In like manner, we now propose to refer to some of our own legislation which, we think, will clearly show that it was never supposed to prevail in this State. [Here WRIGHT, C. J., stated, and commented upon, various statutes.]

This brief reference to these several acts must be sufficient, in our opinion, to satisfy any mind that the legislature never understood that the rule of the common law prevailed in this State. We do not maintain that these provisions expressly change the common-law rule. And did we believe that this principle had, at any time, been well established in this State, we should perhaps hold that it had not been changed by these different statutes. Where, however, it is, to say the least, doubtful whether the rule contended for is in accordance with our situation, condition, and wants as a people, where for a series of years there has been no legislation recognizing the existence of such a rule, and where custom and habit have uniformly negatived its existence, we feel entirely justified in giving force to these acts which, if they do not expressly, certainly do impliedly, change the unwritten law.

* * * * *

_Judgment affirmed._[258]

BEINHORN _v._ GRISWOLD SUPREME COURT, MONTANA, JULY 14, 1902. _Reported in 27 Montana Reports, 79._

PIGOTT, J.[259] Action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The complaint states that the defendant negligently left exposed a vat containing poisonous liquid; that by reason of such negligence certain cattle of plaintiff and of one Holm drank from the vat some of the liquid, and died from the effects of the poison; and that Holm assigned his demand for damages to the plaintiff. The answer puts in issue the allegation of negligence, and avers that the death of the cattle was caused by the carelessness of the plaintiff and Holm. The plaintiff secured a judgment, and the defendant moved for a new trial on several grounds, one being the insufficiency of the evidence to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. From the order denying a new trial the defendant has appealed.

The facts upon which the plaintiff bases his allegations of negligence are substantially these: During the year 1898 the defendant was the lessee in possession of the Non-Such gold mine and mill site. The property was not inclosed by a legal fence. For the proper conduct of his mining operations he employed the cyanide process, using large quantities of poisonous chemicals, consisting principally of cyanide of potassium, which he diluted with water, and kept in suitable receptacles on the surface of the mining property, but not sufficiently covered to prevent easy access to the poisonous solution. In appearance it resembled water. Cattle of the plaintiff and of Holm, while ranging on the public domain, wandered over to and upon the defendant’s mine and mill site, and there drank the poisonous liquid contained in the vats or tubs. The defendant knew that the cattle were in the habit of straying upon his uninclosed property, and he had driven them away whenever he saw them there.

The plaintiff insists there is but one question involved, which he states thus: Is a “landowner who negligently leaves exposed upon his uninclosed premises, where he knows stock are wont to stray, dangerous places or substances, whereby another’s cattle, straying thereon, are injured, liable for such injury?” He argues that, as the defendant’s mining property was not inclosed by a legal fence, the cattle were not trespassing upon his property, but were rightfully thereon, and that therefore he owed to the plaintiff the duty so to use his property and conduct his business as not to injure the plaintiff’s cattle; that, in failing to cover the poisonous solution so as to prevent the cattle from drinking of it, he violated this alleged duty, and as such negligence resulted in the death of the cattle, and consequent loss to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable in damages. In support of his contention the plaintiff cites Monroe _v._ Cannon, 24 Montana Reports, 316 (61 Pac. 863, 81 Am. St. Rep. 439), where the owner of pasture land was held entitled to recover the value of grass consumed by bands of sheep deliberately and intentionally driven on it by the herder in charge of them; the opinion containing the following language: “If in the case now under consideration the damage sustained by respondent had resulted from trespasses committed by cattle or sheep or other animals named in the statute, lawfully at large, and not under the direction and control of their owner, then appellant’s position would be sound.” Neither this language, nor anything said in the opinion, lends countenance to the contention of the plaintiff in the case at bar. The decision does not declare or define any duty owing by the landowner to the owner of straying cattle. These observations apply also to Section 3258 of the Political Code, which reads: “If any cattle, horse, mule, ass, hog, sheep, or other domestic animal break into any inclosure, the fence being legal, as hereinbefore provided, the owner of such animal is liable for all damages to the owner or occupant of the inclosure which may be sustained thereby. This section must not be construed so as to require a legal fence in order to maintain an action for injury done by animals running at large contrary to law.” Even if it be conceded that the cattle of the plaintiff were not wrongfully upon defendant’s property, no liability would be incurred from the fact that they were injured while there, unless it was the defendant’s duty to protect from injury all cattle on his property whose trespass was not of such a nature as to render their owners liable for the trespass. Counsel for the plaintiff urge that, if these cattle were not wrongfully on the defendant’s property, they must have been rightfully there; asserting that if there was no remedy by action, there could not be a trespass. To this we cannot yield assent.

The owner is entitled to the exclusive possession of his land, whether fenced or not; and it is beyond the power of the legislature to prescribe, or of custom to create, a right in another to occupy the land or enjoy its fruits. Either written law or custom may withhold from the owner who does not fence his land a remedy for loss suffered by reason of casual trespasses by cattle which stray upon it, and may give a remedy for such trespasses to those only who inclose their land. By custom as well as by statute the common law of England has been so modified in Montana. This is undoubtedly a legitimate exercise of the police power. It falls far short, however, of conferring a legal right to dispossess the nonfencing owner. He may at pleasure lawfully drive the intruding cattle from his land, and keep them away from it. This is his right, for the cattle are trespassing. The owners of domestic animals hold no servitude upon or interest, temporary or permanent, in the open land of another, merely because it is open. If the landowner fails to “fence out” cattle lawfully at large, he may not successfully complain of loss caused by such live stock straying upon his uninclosed land. For under these circumstances the trespass is condoned or excused,—the law refuses to award damages. While the landowner, by omitting to fence, disables himself from invoking the remedy which is given to those who inclose their property with a legal fence, and while the cattle owner is thereby relieved from liability for casual trespasses, it is nevertheless true that the cattle owner has no _right_ to pasture his cattle on the land of another, and that cattle thus wandering over such lands are not rightfully there. They are there merely by the forbearance, sufferance, or tolerance of the nonfencing landowner; there they may remain only by his tolerance.

The cattle-owning plaintiff did not owe to the land-owning defendant the duty to fence his cattle in; the latter did not owe to the former the duty to fence them out; neither of them was under obligation to the other in that regard. The defendant is not liable in this action unless he was negligent. There cannot be negligence without breach of duty. Hence, manifestly, the defendant was not guilty of negligence in omitting to prevent the plaintiff’s cattle from going upon his unfenced land.

As has just been said, the straying of the plaintiff’s cattle upon the defendant’s land did not involve the violation of any legal duty upon the part of the defendant. There would therefore seem to be no basis for the plaintiff’s charge of negligence on the part of the defendant, unless it consists in the defendant’s alleged failure to protect the cattle from injury while on his land. The damage resulted from a permissive, not an active, cause of injury. We are asked to hold that the law imposed upon the defendant, in addition to the duty of refraining from intentional or wanton injury to the cattle, the duty so to use his property and so to conduct his mining operations thereon as to avoid all dangers to which these trespassing beasts might expose themselves. Counsel invoke the provisions of Section 2296 of the Civil Code, which is declaratory of the common law: “Every one is responsible ... for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property....” Giving to the principle thus expressed full recognition, and measuring the rights of the parties by the test of negligence thus furnished, we are unable to find in the record evidence of acts or omissions by the defendant constituting negligence in the management of his property. But the plaintiff contends that, irrespective of Section 2296, the defendant has been guilty of negligence in so using his property as to imperil, and in this case actually injure, the property of another. We think the principles which he invokes have no application to the facts disclosed by the record. To a naked trespasser or mere licensee by sufferance (if the expression may correctly be used) the landowner owes the duty to refrain from any wilful or wanton act causing injury to his person or chattels, and, after discovering that the trespasser is in imminent danger or immediate peril, to use reasonable care to avoid an active cause of injury. Egan _v._ Montana Central Railway Co., 24 Montana Reports, 569, 63 Pac. 831. The rule is different in respect of those who go upon property because of the owner’s invitation, either express or implied. As to such persons he is bound, at his peril, to use reasonable care and diligence in keeping his property in safe condition. To a mere licensee or naked trespasser the landowner does not owe the active duty of being diligent or using care in providing against the danger of accident. The distinction is well expressed in Sweeny _v._ Old Colony & Newport Railroad Co., 10 Allen, 368, 87 Am. Dec. 644:

[A long quotation from the opinion in that case is omitted.]

The methods pursued by the defendant in the management and use of his property involved no danger to the plaintiff or his cattle, nor exposed either to risk, so long as he and they remained within the limits of the plaintiff’s rights. The contention of the plaintiff rests upon the erroneous theory, heretofore considered, that the cattle owners hold a personal servitude upon, or the right of commons or profit in, all unfenced land, by virtue of which they are supposed to be entitled, as of right, to use for grazing and pasture all of the uninclosed lands of other persons. Such burden upon or easement in gross in open lands has not been granted, and does not exist. We have already decided that such use, while it does not constitute an actionable wrong, is not the exercise of a legal right; and as the cattle owner possessed no right to have his live stock upon the defendant’s land, and the latter was clothed with the unquestioned right to drive them away because they were not rightfully there, clearly the defendant had no active duty in respect of them while there. He was, of course, bound to refrain from intentional or wanton injury; if he stood by and knowingly permitted them to drink of the poisonous solution, without making an effort to prevent them from doing so, he might, perhaps, be liable; but neither of these conditions is in the case at bar.

We think there is no proof in the record which justifies the application of the doctrine of invitation, enticement, allurement or attraction. Deane _v._ Clayton, 7 Taunt. 489, 531, 533; Jordin _v._ Crump, 8 Mees. & W. 782; Ponting _v._ Noakes, (1894) 2 Q. B. 281; Stendal _v._ Boyd, 67 Minn. 279, 69 N. W. 899; Twist _v._ Railroad Co., 39 Minn. 164, 39 N. W. 402, 12 Am. St. Rep. 626. The soundness of the principles upon which the so-called “turn-table” and similar cases are supported is not presented for decision.

We have read the opinions which are opposed to the conclusions here announced. They need not be referred to or discussed. We are entirely satisfied that our conclusions are based upon correct fundamental principles.

The order refusing a new trial is reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the cause is remanded.

_Reversed and remanded._[260]

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BRANTLY: I concur.

MR. JUSTICE MILBURN: Considering only the facts appearing in this case, I concur in the reversal of the order denying a new trial. I do not concur in all that is said in the opinion with reference to absence of duty owing by one person to another who is trespassing upon the premises of the former, or to the owner of live stock which wander upon such premises.

SECTION II INJURIES BY ANIMALS

MAY _v._ BURDETT IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH, JUNE 2, 1846. _Reported in 9 Queen’s Bench Reports_ (_Adolphus & Ellis_, N. S.), 101.

Case. The declaration stated that defendant, “before and at the time of the damage and injury hereinafter mentioned to the said Sophia, the wife of the said Stephen May, wrongfully, and injuriously kept a certain monkey, he the defendant well knowing that the said monkey was of a mischievous and ferocious nature, and was used and accustomed to attack and bite mankind, and that it was dangerous and improper to allow the monkey to be at large and unconfined; which said monkey, whilst the said defendant kept the same as aforesaid, heretofore and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, on the 2d of September, 1844, did attack, bite, wound, lacerate, and injure the said Sophia, then and still being the wife of said Stephen May, whereby the said Sophia became and was greatly terrified and alarmed, and became and was sick, sore, lame, and disordered, and so remained and continued for a long time, to wit, from the day and year last aforesaid to the time of the commencement of this suit; whereby, and in consequence of the alarm and fright occasioned by the said monkey so attacking, biting, wounding, lacerating, and injuring her as aforesaid, the said Sophia has been greatly injured in her health,” &c.

Plea, not guilty. Issue thereon.

On the trial, before Wightman, J., at the sittings in Middlesex, after Hilary term, 1845, a verdict was found for the plaintiff with £50 damages. Cockburn, in the ensuing term, obtained a rule to show cause why judgment should not be arrested.

[The cause was argued] before LORD DENMAN, C. J., PATTESON, J., COLERIDGE, J., and WIGHTMAN, J.[261]

LORD DENMAN, C. J., now delivered the judgment of the Court.

This was a motion to arrest the judgment in an action on the case for keeping a monkey which the defendant knew to be accustomed to bite people, and which bit the female plaintiff. The declaration stated that the defendant wrongfully kept a monkey, well knowing that it was of a mischievous and ferocious nature and used and accustomed to attack and bite mankind, and that it was dangerous to allow it to be at large; and that the monkey, whilst the defendant kept the same as aforesaid, did attack, bite, and injure the female plaintiff, whereby, &c.

It was objected on the part of the defendant that the declaration was bad for not alleging negligence or some default of the defendant in not properly or securely keeping the animal; and it was said that, consistently with this declaration, the monkey might have been kept with due and proper caution, and that the injury might have been entirely occasioned by the carelessness and want of caution of the plaintiff herself.

A great many cases and precedents were cited upon the argument; and the conclusion to be drawn from them appears to us to be that the declaration is good upon the face of it; and that whoever keeps an animal accustomed to attack and bite mankind, with knowledge that it is so accustomed, is _prima facie_ liable in an action on the case at the suit of any person attacked and injured by the animal, without any averment of negligence or default in the securing or taking care of it. The gist of the action is the keeping the animal after knowledge of its mischievous propensities.

The precedents, both ancient and modern, with scarcely an exception, merely state the ferocity of the animal and the knowledge of the defendant, without any allegation of negligence or want of care. A great many were referred to upon the argument, commencing with the Register and ending with Thomas _v._ Morgan, 2 C. M. & R. 496; S. C. 5 Tyr. 1085; and all in the same form, or nearly so. In the Register, 110, 111, two precedents of writs are given, one for keeping a dog accustomed to bite sheep, and the other for keeping a boar accustomed to attack and wound other animals. The cause of action, as stated in both these precedents, is the propensity of the animals, the knowledge of the defendant, and the injury to the plaintiff; but there is no allegation of negligence or want of care. In the case of Mason _v._ Kneeling, reported in 1 Ld. Ray. and 12 Mod., and much relied upon on the part of the defendant, want of due care was alleged, but the scienter was omitted; and the question was, not whether the declaration would be good without the allegation of want of care, but whether it was good without the allegation of knowledge, which it was held that it was not. No case was cited in which it had been decided that a declaration stating the ferocity of the animal and the knowledge of the defendant was bad for not averring negligence also; but various _dicta_ in the books were cited to show that this is an action founded on negligence, and therefore not maintainable unless some negligence or want of care is alleged.

In Comyns’ Digest, tit. Action upon the Case for Negligence (A 5), it is said that “an action upon the case lies for a neglect in taking care of his cattle, dog, &c.;” and passages were cited from the older authorities, and also from some cases at _nisi prius_, in which expressions were used showing that, if persons suffered animals to go at large, knowing them to be disposed to do mischief, they were liable in case any mischief actually was done; and it was attempted to be inferred from this that the liability only attached in case they were suffered to go at large or to be otherwise ill secured. But the conclusion to be drawn from an examination of all the authorities appears to us to be this: that a person keeping a mischievous animal with knowledge of its propensities is bound to keep it secure at his peril, and that if it does mischief, negligence is presumed, without express averment. The precedents as well as the authorities fully warrant this conclusion. The negligence is in keeping such an animal after notice. The case of Smith _v._ Pelah, 2 Stra. 1264, and a passage in 1 Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, 430,[262] put the liability on the true ground. It may be that if the injury was solely occasioned by the wilfulness of the plaintiff after warning, that may be a ground of defence, by plea in confession and avoidance; but it is unnecessary to give any opinion as to this; for we think that the declaration is good upon the face of it, and shows a _prima facie_ liability in the defendant.

It was said, indeed, further, on the part of the defendant, that, the monkey being an animal _ferae naturae_, he would not be answerable for injuries committed by it if it escaped and went at large without any default on the part of the defendant, during the time it had so escaped and was at large, because at that time it would not be in his keeping nor under his control; but we cannot allow any weight to this objection; for, in the first place, there is no statement in the declaration that the monkey had escaped, and it is expressly averred that the injury occurred whilst the defendant kept it; we are besides of opinion, as already stated, that the defendant, if he would keep it, was bound to keep it secure at all events.

The rule therefore will be discharged.

_Rule discharged._[263]

FILBURN _v._ PEOPLE’S PALACE AND AQUARIUM COMPANY, LIMITED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, JUNE 30, 1890. _Reported in Law Reports, 25 Queen’s Bench Division, 258._

Appeal from a judgment of DAY, J.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff by his being attacked by an elephant, which was the property of the defendants, and was being exhibited by them. The learned judge left three questions to the jury: whether the elephant was an animal dangerous to man; whether the defendant knew the elephant to be dangerous, and whether the plaintiff brought the attack on himself. The jury answered all three questions in the negative. The learned judge entered judgment for the plaintiff for a sum agreed upon in case the plaintiff should be entitled to recover.

The defendants appealed.

_Lockwood_, Q. C., and _Cyril Dodd_, Q. C., in support of the appeal. There are certain animals recognized as being of an untamable nature, and these a person keeps at his peril. In Hale’s Pleas of the Crown (vol. i, p. 430), it is said: “Tho’ he have no particular notice that he did any such thing before, yet if it be a beast, that is _ferae naturae_, as a lion, a bear, a wolf, yea an ape or a monkey, if he get loose and do harm to any person, the owner is liable to an action for the damage.” There is, however, no hard and fast line which prevents an animal _ferae naturae_ ceasing to belong to that class and becoming domesticated. The distinction is drawn in Rex _v._ Huggins, 2 Ld. Raym. 1574, where it is said: “There is a difference between beasts that are _ferae naturae_, as lions and tygers, which a man must always keep up at his peril; and beasts that are _mansuetae naturae_, and break through the tameness of their nature, such as oxen and horses. In the latter case an action lies, if the owner has had notice of the quality of the beast; in the former case an action lies without such notice.” All animals are wild by nature, and the reason for the distinction is, that some of them are treated as domesticated, because they have been tamed and are used in the service of man. Though there are wild elephants, just as there are wild oxen and horses, a great number have been tamed, and are used in the service of man; and the same ruling should apply to individuals of this class as to domesticated animals generally. The jury have negatived any knowledge on the part of the defendants of any dangerous character in this elephant, and they are, under these circumstances, entitled to the verdict.

LORD ESHER, M. R. The only difficulty I feel in the decision of this case is whether it is possible to enunciate any formula under which this and similar cases may be classified. The law of England recognizes two distinct classes of animals; and as to one of those classes, it cannot be doubted that a person who keeps an animal belonging to that class must prevent it from doing injury, and it is immaterial whether he knows it to be dangerous or not. As to another class, the law assumes that animals belonging to it are not of a dangerous nature, and any one who keeps an animal of this kind is not liable for the damage it may do, unless he knew that it was dangerous. What, then, is the best way of dealing generally with these different cases? I suppose there can be no dispute that there are some animals that every one must recognize as not being dangerous on account of their nature. Whether they are _ferae naturae_ so far as rights of property are concerned is not the question; they certainly are not so in the sense that they are dangerous. There is another set of animals that the law has recognized in England as not being of a dangerous nature, such as sheep, horses, oxen, dogs, and others that I will not attempt to enumerate. I take it this recognition has come about from the fact that years ago, and continuously to the present time, the progeny of these classes has been found by experience to be harmless, and so the law assumes the result of this experience to be correct without further proof. Unless an animal is brought within one of these two descriptions,—that is, unless it is shown to be either harmless by its very nature, or to belong to a class that has become so by what may be called cultivation,—it falls within the class of animals as to which the rule is, that a man who keeps one must take the responsibility of keeping it safe. It cannot possibly be said that an elephant comes within the class of animals known to be harmless by nature, or within that shown by experience to be harmless in this country, and consequently it falls within the class of animals that a man keeps at his peril, and which he must prevent from doing injury under any circumstances, unless the person to whom the injury is done brings it on himself. It was, therefore, immaterial in this case whether the particular animal was a dangerous one, or whether the defendants had any knowledge that it was so. The judgment entered was in these circumstances right, and the appeal must be dismissed.

LINDLEY, L. J. I am of the same opinion. The last case of this kind discussed was May _v._ Burdett, 9 Q. B. 101, but there the monkey which did the mischief was said to be accustomed to attack mankind, to the knowledge of the person who kept it. That does not decide this case. We have had no case cited to us, nor any evidence, to show that elephants in this country are not as a class dangerous; nor are they commonly known here to belong to the class of domesticated animals. Therefore a person who keeps one is liable, though he does not know that the

## particular one that he keeps is mischievous. Applying that principle to

this case, it appears that the judgment for the plaintiff was right, and this appeal must be dismissed.

BOWEN, L. J. I am of the same opinion. The broad principle that governs this case is that laid down in Fletcher _v._ Rylands, Law Rep. 1 Ex. 265; Law Rep. 3 H. L. 330, that a person who brings upon his land anything that would not naturally come upon it, and which is in itself dangerous, must take care that it is kept under proper control. The question of liability for damage done by mischievous animals is a branch of that law which has been applied in the same way from the times of Lord Holt[264] and of Hale until now. People must not be wiser than the experience of mankind. If from the experience of mankind a particular class of animals is dangerous, though individuals may be tamed, a person who keeps one of the class takes the risk of any damage it may do. If, on the other hand, the animal kept belongs to a class which, according to the experience of mankind, is not dangerous, and not likely to do mischief, and if the class is dealt with by mankind on that footing, a person may safely keep such an animal, unless he knows that the

## particular animal that he keeps is likely to do mischief. It cannot be

doubted that elephants as a class have not been reduced to a state of subjection; they still remain wild and untamed, though individuals are brought to a degree of tameness which amounts to domestication. A person, therefore, who keeps an elephant, does so at his own risk, and an action can be maintained for any injury done by it, although the owner had no knowledge of its mischievous propensities. I agree, therefore, that the appeal must be dismissed.

_Appeal dismissed._[265]

MAUNG KYAW DUN _v._ MA KYIN BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF UPPER BURMA, MAY 7, 1900. _Reported in 2 Upper Burma Rulings (1897–1901), Civil, 570._

H. THIRKELL WHITE, ESQ., JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER.

The plaintiff-appellant sued to recover damages on account of the death of his elephant “Do,” which died from the effect of wounds inflicted by the respondents’ elephant, “Kya Gyi.”

The issues which arise in a case of this kind have been stated in two cases of this court. In Maung Gyi _v._ Po To [same vol., p. 565] it was observed that the issue generally would no doubt be the usual issue as to the existence of negligence on the part of the owner of the animal doing the damage. In Maung Saw _v._ Maung Kyaw [same vol., p. 567], points which arise in a case very similar to the present were indicated. There has been some argument in this court on the application of the doctrine of _scienter_. It is said that “any one who keeps a wild animal, as a tiger or bear, which escapes and does damage, is liable without any proof of notice of the animal’s ferocity; but where the damage is done by a domestic animal, the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew the animal was accustomed to do mischief.” Collett on Torts, 7th edition, p. 100. Again, “a person keeping a mischievous animal with knowledge of its propensities is bound to keep it secure at his peril. If it escapes and does mischief, he is liable without proof of negligence, neither is proof required that he knew the animal to be mischievous, if it is of a notoriously fierce or mischievous species.” Pollock on Torts, 3d edition, p. 442. In Smith’s Leading Cases in the notes on Fletcher v. Rylands, 10th edition, vol. i, p. 827, it is said: “The law of England recognizes two distinct classes of animals. The first class consists of such animals as sheep, horses, oxen, and dogs, which the law assumes not to be of a dangerous nature, and a person who keeps an animal of this class is not liable for any damage it may do, when not trespassing, unless he knew that it was in fact dangerous. The other class consists of animals which have not been shown by experience to be harmless by nature; and one who keeps animals of this class must prevent them from doing injury under any circumstances, unless the person to whom it is done brings it on himself.” In the English case on which these remarks are based (Filburn _v._ People’s Palace Company), it was held that an elephant “did not belong to a class which, according to the experience of mankind, is not dangerous to man, and therefore the owner kept such an animal at his own risk, and his liability for damage done by it was not affected by his ignorance of its dangerous character.” Mew’s Digest of English Case Law, p. 199.

I understand the remarks of my learned predecessor in Maung Gyi _v._ Po To above cited to go no further than to suggest that a man should be liable for injury caused by his animal, whether tame or wild, if it is proved that the injury was due to the owner’s negligence. In that view, it would not be necessary to draw a distinction between wild and domestic animals. The point for decision would be whether the owner was guilty of negligence or whether he used such care as in the circumstances of the case was reasonable and ordinarily sufficient. The amount of care required would vary according to the class of the animal and according to its known disposition. It could not, I think, be laid down in this country that a man is liable for any damage done by his elephant without any proof of negligence or that he knew it to be of a vicious disposition. In view of the manner in, and extent to, which elephants are employed in this country such a proposition would be manifestly unjust.

In the present case, therefore, I think it was for the plaintiff to prove that the damage done to his elephant was caused, or rendered possible, by the defendant’s negligence. In considering the question of negligence, the defendant’s knowledge or want of knowledge that her elephant was of a vicious disposition would be an important point. In a suit of this kind, where an animal like an elephant is concerned, I think the burden of proving negligence is in the first place on the plaintiff who avers it. It might be otherwise if injury by a tiger or bear were concerned.

I agree with the Lower Courts in thinking that it is not proved that the defendant knew that the elephant “Kya Gyi” was of a vicious disposition. It was therefore not incumbent on her to take more than ordinary precautions with him. It does not seem to be shown that ordinary precautions were neglected. It is alleged that “Kya Gyi” twice gored the deceased elephant “Do,” and the mahout called by the plaintiff declares that he had neither bell nor fetters. On the other hand, as pointed out in the judgment of the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff himself admitted that “Kya Gyi” had a bell and fetters on the second occasion. It is admitted that all the other elephants of the defendant had bells and fetters. There is direct evidence, at least as good as that for the plaintiff, that “Kya Gyi” was properly provided with them. In my opinion it has not been proved that there was any negligence on the part of the defendant, and any _prima facie_ case made out by the plaintiff has been rebutted. I therefore hold that the Lower Courts have rightly decided that the defendants are not liable; and I dismiss this appeal with costs.[266]

BOSTOCK-FERARI AMUSEMENT COMPANY _v._ BROCKSMITH APPELLATE COURT, INDIANA, FEBRUARY 14, 1895. _Reported in 34 Indiana Appellate Court Reports, 566._

## Action by Otto Brocksmith against Bostock-Ferari Amusement Company. From

a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

COMSTOCK, C. J. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, while driving in his buggy, was injured in consequence of his horse taking fright from the sight of a bear walking along a public street in the city of Vincennes. The action was begun in the Circuit Court of Knox County, and, upon change of venue, tried in the Circuit Court of Sullivan County. The court rendered judgment upon the verdict of the jury in favor of appellee for $750. The complaint was in three paragraphs. The first was dismissed, and the cause was tried upon the amended second and third paragraphs, to which general denial was filed.

The errors relied upon are the action of the court in overruling demurrers to said second and third paragraphs, respectively, of the complaint, and overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. Some of the reasons set out in the motion for a new trial are that the verdict was contrary to the law, and was not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The question of the sufficiency of the second paragraph of the complaint is not entirely free from doubt, but we conclude that each of said paragraphs is sufficient to withstand a demurrer.

It is sought to maintain an action for damages resulting from the fright of a horse at the sight of a bear, which his keeper and owner was leading along a public street, for the purpose of transporting him from a railroad train, by which he had been carried to Vincennes, to the point in Vincennes at which the bear was to be an exhibit as a part of appellant’s show. It is not claimed, either by allegation or proof, that the show was in itself unlawful; and there is no pretence that the transporting of the bear from one place to another for the purpose of exhibition was unlawful, or in itself negligence. The case is therefore one of the fright of a horse merely at the appearance of the bear while he was being led along the street, was making no noise or other demonstration, and was in the control of his keeper. It appears without contradiction from the evidence that when the horse took fright the bear was doing nothing except going with his keeper. He was muzzled. He had a ring in his nose to which a chain was attached. Said chain was strong enough to hold and control him. He had around his neck a collar about two inches wide and one-half inch thick, to which also was attached a chain. The keeper had both chains in his hand when the accident occurred. The chain connected with the ring in his nose was small. The one connected with his collar was large. It was for the purpose of chaining him at night when he was alone. The chains were strong enough to control the bear. The animal was characterized by the witnesses who knew him as “gentle,” “kind,” “docile.” His keeper testified that he had never known him to be mean or to growl. He testified also that he never knew of a bear scaring a horse; that shortly before the accident the keeper met two ladies in a buggy, and their horse did not scare. He was described as of pretty good size and brown. One witness said he was a “large, ugly-looking, brown bear.”

When a person is injured by an attack by an animal _ferae naturae_, the negligence of the owner is presumed, because the dangerous propensity of such an animal is known, and the law recognizes that safety lies only in keeping it secure. 2 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2d ed.), p. 351. In the case before us the injury did not result from any vicious propensity of the bear. He did nothing but walk in the charge of his owner and keeper, Peter Degeleih. He was being moved quietly upon a public thoroughfare for a lawful purpose.

We have given the facts that are not controverted. There is also evidence leading strongly to support the claim made by appellant that appellee was guilty of negligence, proximately contributing to his injury. Appellant also earnestly argues—supporting its argument with references to recognized authorities—that the owner and keeper of the bear was an independent contractor. But the disposition which we think should be made of the appeal makes it unnecessary to consider these questions. The liability of the appellant must rest on the doctrine of negligence. The gist of the action as claimed by appellee is the transportation of the bear, with knowledge that he was likely to frighten horses, without taking precaution to guard against fright.

1. An animal _ferae naturae_, reduced to captivity, is the property of its captor, 2 Blackstone’s Comm., *391, *403; 4 Blackstone’s Comm., *235, *236.

2. The owner of the bear had the right to transport him from one place to another for a lawful purpose, and it was not negligence per se for the owner or keeper to lead him along a public street for such purpose. Scribner _v._ Kelley, (1862) 38 Barb. 14; Macomber _v._ Nichols, (1876) 34 Mich. 212, 22 Am. Rep. 522; Ingham, Law of Animals, p. 230.

3. The conducting of shows for the exhibition of wild or strange animals is a lawful business. The mere fact that the appearance of a chattel, whether an animal or an inanimate object, is calculated to frighten a horse of ordinary gentleness, does not deprive the owner of such chattel of his lawful right to transport his property along a public highway. Macomber _v._ Nichols, _supra_; Holland _v._ Bartch, (1889) 120 Ind. 46, 16 Am. St. 307; Wabash, etc., R. Co. _v._ Farver, (1887) 111 Ind. 195, 60 Am. Rep. 696; Gilbert _v._ Flint, etc., R. Co., (1883) 51 Mich. 488, 16 N. W. 868, 47 Am. Rep. 592; Piolette _v._ Simers, (1894) 106 Pa. St. 95, 51 Am. Rep. 496. One must use his own so as not unnecessarily to injure another, but the measure of care to be employed in respect to animals and other property is the same. It is such care as an ordinarily prudent person would employ under similar circumstances. This is not inconsistent with the proposition that if an animal _ferae naturae_ attacks and injures a person, the negligence of the owner or keeper is presumed. The evidence is that the horse was of ordinary gentleness, but this fact would not deprive the appellant of the right to make proper use of the street. If the bear had been carelessly managed, or permitted to make any unnecessary noise or demonstration, it would have been an act of negligence.

It is not uncommon for horses of ordinary gentleness to become frightened at unaccustomed sights on the public highway. The automobile, the bicycle, the traction-engine, the steam roller may each be frightful to some horses, but still they may be lawfully used on the public streets. King David said, “An horse is a vain thing for safety.” Modern observation has fully justified the statement. A large dog, a great bull, a baby wagon may each frighten some horses, but their owners are not barred from using them upon the streets on that account. Nor under the decisions would the courts be warranted in holding that the owner of a bear, subjugated, gentle, docile, chained, would not, under the facts shown in the case at the bar, be permitted to conduct the homely brute along the public streets because of his previous condition of freedom.

In Scribner _v._ Kelley, _supra_, the court said: “It does not appear that the elephant was at large, but on the contrary that he was in the care, and apparently under the control, of a man who was riding beside him on a horse; and the occurrence happened before the passage of the act of April 2, 1862, regulating the use of public highways. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the plaintiff’s horse was terrified because the object he saw was an elephant, but only that he was frightened because he suddenly saw moving upon a highway, crossing that upon which he was travelling, and fully one hundred feet from him, a large animate object to which he was unaccustomed—_non constat_ that any other moving object of equal size and differing in appearance from such as he was accustomed to see might not have inspired him with similar terror. The injury which resulted from his fright is more fairly attributed to a lack of ordinary courage and discipline in himself, than to the fact that the object which he saw was an elephant.”

4. It is alleged in the complaint that the bear was an object likely to frighten a horse of ordinary gentleness, which fact the appellant well knew. There is no evidence that the bear was an object likely to frighten horses of ordinary gentleness, nor that the appellant knew that the bear was an object likely to frighten horses of ordinary gentleness. The evidence shows, so far as the observation of the keeper and the appellant gave information, that the bear had not frightened horses.

* * * * *

The facts upon the question of negligence are undisputed, and that question is therefore to be determined by the court as a matter of law.

Judgment is reversed, with instruction to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.[267]

MARLOR _v._ BALL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, MARCH 1, 1900. _Reported in 16 Times Law Reports, 239._

This was an application by the defendant for judgment or a new trial in an action tried before Mr. Justice Phillimore and a special jury at Manchester. The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff through being bitten by a zebra belonging to the defendant. The plaintiff was a working man. The defendant was the proprietor of the Chadderton-hall pleasuregrounds, at Oldham, where he kept an exhibition of wild animals. The plaintiff went with his wife and his brother-in-law to see the exhibition, and, having paid for admission, entered the gardens. While they were walking along they found the door of a stable standing open, and went in. There were four zebras inside the stable, each in a separate stall and properly tied up by a halter to the manger. The plaintiff went up to one of the zebras and stroked it. The animal kicked out, and the plaintiff being then standing against the partition, the animal pressed him through the

## partition, and he fell into the next stall, where another zebra bit his

hand, which had to be amputated. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £175.

_Mr. Montague Lush_, for the defendant, in support of the application for judgment or a new trial, contended that there was no evidence on which the defendant could be held liable. The common law obligation of a person who kept animals _ferae naturae_ was to keep them secure, or, in other words, to prevent them from getting loose. He was liable to an

## action, if, in consequence of a failure on his part to comply with that

obligation, any other person was injured. In such a case it was not necessary for the plaintiff to allege negligence. But in this case there had been no failure to comply with that common law obligation. Here the animals were kept secure, they were not loose. The plaintiff, therefore, had to allege negligence, and the alleged negligence appeared to be this, that the defendant did not provide a keeper, or some physical barrier to prevent people from meddling with the animals. But this allegation did not show a cause of action at all. There was no authority for saying that an action lay for not preventing the plaintiff from bringing an injury on himself. It was not sufficient for the plaintiff here to show that the door was open. The door being open might be an invitation to go in, but it was not an invitation to meddle by stroking the zebras. The plaintiff failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant, and he had no remedy. Counsel referred to Filburn _v._ The People’s Palace and Aquarium Company (Limited), 25 Q. B. D. 258; and Memberz _v._ The Great Western Railway Company, 14 App. Cas. 179.

_Mr. S. T. Evans_, for the plaintiff, said the foundation of the action was that zebras were dangerous animals, and it was the duty of persons who kept dangerous animals to prevent them from doing injury. The leaving the door of the stable unlocked was a default on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff was not in any way warned that these zebras were wild animals. The evidence taken altogether showed that these zebras were kept in much the same way as horses would ordinarily be kept. He referred to May _v._ Burdett, 9 Q. B. 101.

The Court allowed the application and ordered judgment to be entered for the defendant.

LORD JUSTICE A. L. SMITH said it was conceded that a zebra was a dangerous animal, and that by law a man who kept a dangerous animal must do so at his peril, and that if any damage resulted, then, apart from any question of negligence, he was liable for the damage. But that was subject to this, that the person who complained of damage must not have brought the injury on himself. Where the plaintiff did something which he had no business to do,—_e. g._ by meddling, as the plaintiff in this case had done,—then the defendant was not liable. That was common law, and it was also common sense. In Filburn _v._ The People’s Palace (Limited), Lord Esher expressly dealt with this point. He there said: “It cannot possibly be said that an elephant comes within the class of animals known to be harmless by nature, or within that shown by experience to be harmless in this country, and consequently it falls within the class of animals that a man keeps at his peril, and which he must prevent from doing injury under any circumstances, unless the person to whom the injury is done brings it on himself.” The action, therefore, could not be maintained on the common law liability. The plaintiff then set up a claim for negligence, viz., that the door was not kept locked, and that there was no keeper at hand. The evidence showed that the door had been shut, but had got opened. If the plaintiff had been kicked while walking along the stable, an action might have lain, but the plaintiff went into the stall and meddled with the animal. Even if the fact of the door being open was an invitation to go into the stable, it was not an invitation to stroke the animals. In his opinion there was no evidence to go to the jury, and judgment must be entered for the defendant.

LORD JUSTICE COLLINS said the plaintiff’s case was put on the footing of these zebras being wild animals. The duty of a person who owned a wild animal, as laid down in May _v._ Burdett, was to keep it secure at his peril. The evidence in this case all went to show that these animals were kept secure within the meaning of that case. In his opinion there was no evidence of any invitation to go and tamper with the animals.

LORD JUSTICE ROMER concurred.[268]

MASON _v._ KEELING IN THE KING’S BENCH, MICHAELMAS TERM, 1699. _Reported in 12 Modern Reports, 332._

## Action on the case, in which the plaintiff declared that on the

twentieth of June, in the eleventh of the king, the defendant _quendam canem molossum valde ferocem_ did keep, and let him go loose unmuzzled _per publica compita_, so that _pro defectu curæ_ of the defendant the plaintiff was bit and worried by the said dog, as he was peaceably going about his business in such a street. There was another count, in which it was laid that the defendant knew the dog _ad mordend. assuet_. To the first count there was a demurrer, and to the second not guilty.[269]

GOULD, J. No doubt but in the case of sheep there ought to be a _sciens_, because that is an accidental quality, and not in the nature of a dog. And as to property of a dog, the Books distinguish; for a man has a property in a dog that is a mastiff or spaniel, for the one is for the guard of his house, the other for his pleasure; but this here is a mongrel, and laid to be _valde ferocem_, and that must be an innate fierceness, and not accidental; and if a dog be _assuet_. to bite cows, and the master know it, that will not be sufficient knowledge to make him liable for his biting sheep. Besides, this case is distinguishable in respect of the place, for the law takes notice of highway, and is a security for passengers; and it would be dangerous to keep such dogs near the highway, where all sorts of people pass at all hours; and to maintain this issue, they must give a natural fierceness in evidence.

HOLT, C. J. If it had been said that the defendant knew the dog to be _ferox_, I should think it enough. The difference is between things in which the party has a valuable property, for he shall answer for all damages done by them; but of things in which he has no valuable property, if they are such as are naturally mischievous in their kind, he shall answer for hurt done by them without any notice; but if they are of a tame nature, there must be notice of the ill quality; and the law takes notice that a dog is not of a fierce nature, but rather the contrary; and the presumption is against the plaintiff; for can it be imagined a man would keep a fierce dog in his family wittingly? If any beast in which I have a valuable property do damage in another’s soil, in treading his grass, trespass will lie for it; but if my dog go into another man’s soil, no action will lie. See the case of Millan _v._ Hawtree, 1 Jones, 131, Poph. 161, Latch, 13, 119, that _scienter_ is the _gît_ of the action; and so is 1 Cro., where it was doubted whether the _scienter_ should go to the keeping or quality; nor does it appear here but it was an accidental fierceness, or suppose it were an innate one to this dog particularly; and it had been given to the owner but an hour before, shall he take notice of all the qualities of his dog at his peril, or shall he have his action against the giver for bestowing him a naughty dog? In case a dog bites pigs, which almost all dogs will do, a _scienter_ is necessary. 1 Cro. 255. And I do not doubt but if it be generally laid that a dog was used to bite _animalia_, and the defendant knew of it, it will be enough to charge him for biting of sheep, &c.; and by _animalia_ shall not be intended frogs or mice, but such in which the plaintiff has property.

And judgment was given for the defendant by HOLT, Chief-Justice, and TURTON, Justice; GOULD, J., _mutante opinionem suam_.[270]

DE GRAY _v._ MURRAY SUPREME COURT, NEW JERSEY, JUNE 8, 1903. _Reported in 69 New Jersey Law Reports, 458._

GUMMERE, C. J. This was an action to recover for injuries resulting to the plaintiff in error (the plaintiff below) from the bite of a dog, owned by the defendant in error, which attacked her while she was walking on the public street. At the close of the testimony the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff seeks to review the judgment entered upon that verdict.

It is the settled law that the owner of a dog will not be held responsible for injuries resulting to another person from its bite unless it be shown that the dog had previously bitten some one else, or was vicious, to the knowledge of the owner. Smith _v._ Donohue, 20 Vroom, 548, and cases cited.

[After discussing the evidence, and holding that there was an utter failure to prove _scienter_.]

But even if the evidence submitted would support the conclusion that the dog had a propensity to bite, and that what the defendant heard about its attack on the boy charged him with knowledge of that propensity, the direction of a verdict in his favor was not erroneous. In England, and in some of our sister states, it is held that the owner of an animal which has a propensity to attack and bite mankind, who keeps it with the knowledge that it has such a propensity, does so at his peril, and that his liability for injuries inflicted by it is absolute. A leading case is that of May _v._ Burdett, 9 Q. B. (N. S.) 112, in which it is stated that “the conclusion to be drawn from all the authorities appears to be this: that a person keeping a mischievous animal, with knowledge of its propensity, is bound to keep it secure at his peril, and that if it does mischief, negligence is presumed without express averment. The negligence is in keeping such an animal after notice.” Subsequently, the Court of Exchequer Chamber, adopting as accurate the principle underlying the decision of May _v._ Burdett, and referring to the opinion in that case, among others, as an authority for its conclusion, declared, in the case of Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Exch. 265, that “one who, for his own purposes, brings upon his land, and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, is _prima facie_ answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” The application of this principle led the court to fix liability upon the owner of land, who had stored water in a reservoir built thereon, for injury done to adjoining property by water escaping from the reservoir, notwithstanding that such escape was not due to any negligence on the part of the owner. Ten years after the decision of Fletcher _v._ Rylands, the rule laid down in that case was applied in this state, at circuit, in the case of Marshall _v._ Welwood, 9 Vroom, 339, and the owner of a steam boiler, which blew up and wrecked adjacent property, was held liable for the damage done, notwithstanding the fact that the bursting of the boiler was not due to any negligence on his part. The case was subsequently reviewed here, on rule to show cause, and this court, in a masterly opinion by the late Chief Justice Beasley, expressly disapproved of the doctrine laid down in Fletcher _v._ Rylands (which, as I have already stated, is rested, among other decisions, on May _v._ Burdett), and declared that no man is, in law, an insurer that the acts which he does, such acts being lawful and done with care, shall not injuriously affect others; and that an injury which results from a lawful act, done in a lawful manner, and without negligence on the part of the person doing the act, will not support an action. Applying that principle to the case in hand, this court then held that the owner of a steam boiler, which he has in use on his own property, is not responsible, in the absence of negligence, for the damages done by its bursting. The principle laid down in Marshall _v._ Welwood was reiterated by this court in the case of Hill _v._ Ulshowski, 32 Id. 375.

The right of a man to keep a vicious dog for the protection of his home and property is conceded in the case of Roehers _v._ Remhoff, 26 Vroom, 475. He is, of course, bound to exercise a degree of care, commensurate with the danger to others which will follow the dog’s escape from his control, to so secure it that it will not injure any one who does not unlawfully provoke or intermeddle with it. Worthen _v._ Love, 60 Vt. 285. But if the owner does use such care, and the dog nevertheless escapes and inflicts injury, he is not liable.

In the case now under consideration the undisputed evidence makes it clear that the defendant fully discharged the duty of using due care to prevent the escape of his dog from his premises, and that the plaintiff’s injury was not due to any neglect in that regard upon his part. She was bitten in the early morning, between half-past six and seven o’clock. On the preceding evening the defendant shut the dog in his carpenter shop (which adjoined his dwelling) and locked him in. During the night the dog gnawed away the woodwork from around the lock of the door to such an extent that the lock became detached, thus permitting the door to open and the dog to escape. That a reasonably prudent man would not have anticipated any such occurrence must be admitted.

_The judgment under review should be affirmed._[271]

CROWLEY _v._ GROONELL SUPREME COURT, VERMONT, FEBRUARY 9, 1901. _Reported in 73 Vermont Reports, 45._

Case for an injury to the plaintiff by the defendant’s dog. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury, Rutland County, March Term, 1900, Rowell, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted.

It appeared that the plaintiff, an old man, was a neighbor of the defendant and went one morning to the defendant’s barn, where the latter was, to buy some potatoes of him; that when the plaintiff got near the barn, the defendant’s dog, which was large, and was lying near the barn door, assaulted the plaintiff by jumping up and putting his feet upon him and throwing him down, breaking his hip. The testimony was conflicting as to whether this assault was vicious or playful and as to the propensities of the dog known to the plaintiff.

WATSON, J. The only exception upon which the defendant relies is the one to that part of the charge where the court said that a cross and savage disposition on the part of the dog was not necessary in order to impose liability; that a mischievous propensity to commit the kind of assault complained of was enough if the plaintiff’s case was otherwise made out; and that in respect to imposing liability, it made no difference whether such assault proceeded from good nature or ill nature, from ugliness or playfulness.

The defendant contends that the duty of restraint attaches only when the owner or keeper has reason to apprehend that the dog may do damage by reason of its viciousness or ferocity, and that the acts of the dog, proceeding from good nature or playfulness, cannot render the defendant liable. If a man have a beast that is _ferae naturae_ as a lion, a bear, a wolf, if he get loose and do harm to any person, the owner is liable to an action for damages, though he have no particular notice that he had done any such thing before. The same principle applies to damages done by domestic animals, except that as to them, the owner must have seen or heard enough to convince a man of ordinary prudence of the animal’s inclination to commit the class of injuries complained of. With notice to the owner of such propensity in the animal, he is liable for whatever damages may be suffered by person or property therefrom. It makes no difference whether the animal was of cross and savage disposition and committed the injury by reason of its viciousness and ferocity, or whether such injury resulted from good nature and playfulness—the intent of the animal is not material. The owner or keeper having knowledge of its disposition to commit such injuries must restrain it at his peril, and it is no answer to say that the animal was not cross or savage and was in good nature and playfulness.

* * * * *

In State _v._ McDermott, 6 Atl. Rep. 653 [49 N. J. Law, 163], at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that it did not appear that the dog had bitten McDermott maliciously, and also on the ground that there was no evidence that the dog had bitten other persons except in play, or that the defendant had knowledge of the propensity of the dog to bite. The motion was overruled. It was contended that although several persons had been bitten by the dog, of which the defendant had notice, yet it appeared that in every instance the biting occurred while the dog was in a playful mood; that damages could not be recovered where it was shown that the dog had a propensity to bite only in play; and that to justify a recovery, it must appear that the dog was in the habit of biting mankind while in an angry mood, actuated by a ferocious spirit. It was held that this was not the law,—that an action could be maintained against the owner by a party injured upon evidence that a dog, with the knowledge of the owner, had a mischievous propensity to bite mankind, whether in anger or not; for in either case, the person bitten would suffer injury, and that mischievous propensity, within the meaning of the law, was a propensity from which injury is the natural result.

* * * * *

_There was no error in the charge, and judgment is affirmed._[272]

ERLE, C. J., IN COX _v._ BURBIDGE (1863) _13 Common Bench, New Series, 435–437._

I am of opinion that this rule must be made absolute, on the ground that there was a total absence of evidence to support the cause of action alleged. The facts I take to be these: The plaintiff, a child of tender age, was lawfully upon the highway, and a horse, the property of the defendant, was straying on the highway. As between the owner of the horse and the owner of the soil of the highway or of the herbage growing thereon, we may assume that the horse was trespassing; and, if the horse had done any damage to the soil, the owner of the soil might have had a right of action against his owner. So, it may be assumed, that if the place in question were a public highway, the owner of the horse might have been liable to be proceeded against under the Highway Act. But, in considering the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant for the injury sustained from the kick, the question whether the horse was a trespasser as against the owner of the soil, or whether his owner was amenable under the Highway Act, has nothing to do with the case of the plaintiff. I am also of opinion that so much of the argument which has been addressed to us on the part of the plaintiff as assumes the action to be founded upon the negligence of the owner of the horse in allowing it to be upon the road unattended, is not tenable. To entitle the plaintiff to maintain the action, it is necessary to show a breach of some legal duty due from the defendant to the plaintiff; and it is enough to say that there is no evidence to support the affirmative of the issue that there was negligence on the part of the defendant for which an action would lie by the plaintiff. The simple fact found is, that the horse was on the highway. He may have been there without any negligence of the owner: he might have been put there by a stranger, or might have escaped from some enclosed place without the owner’s knowledge. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, there must be some affirmative proof of negligence in the defendant in respect of a duty owing to the plaintiff. But, even if there was any negligence on the part of the owner of the horse, I do not see how that is at all connected with the damage of which the plaintiff complains. It appears that the horse was on the highway, and that, without anything to account for it, he struck out and injured the plaintiff. I take the well-known distinction to apply here, that the owner of an animal is answerable for any damage done by it, provided it be of such a nature as is likely to arise from such an animal, and the owner knows it. Thus, in the case of a dog, if he bites a man or worries sheep, and his owner knows that he is accustomed to bite men or to worry sheep, the owner is responsible; but the party injured has no remedy unless the _scienter_ can be proved. This is very familiar doctrine; and it seems to me that there is much stronger reason for applying that rule in respect of the damage done here. The owner of a horse must be taken to know that the animal will stray if not properly secured, and may find its way into his neighbor’s corn or pasture. For a trespass of that kind, the owner is of course responsible. But if the horse does something which is quite contrary to his ordinary nature,—something which his owner has no reason to expect he will do, he has the same sort of protection that the owner of a dog has; and everybody knows that it is not at all the ordinary habit of a horse to kick a child on a highway. I think the ground upon which the plaintiff’s counsel rests his case fails. It reduces itself to the question whether the owner of a horse is liable for a sudden act of a fierce and violent nature which is altogether contrary to the usual habits of the horse, without more.[273]

DICKSON _v._ MCCOY COURT OF APPEALS, NEW YORK, JUNE TERM, 1868. _Reported in 39 New York Reports, 400._

This was an action for injury to the plaintiff by the horse of the defendant. The plaintiff, a child of ten years, was passing the stable of the defendant, upon the sidewalk of a populous street in the city of Troy, when the defendant’s horse came out of the stable, going loose and unattended, and, in passing, kicked the plaintiff in the face. The complaint alleged that the horse was “of a malicious and mischievous disposition, and accustomed to attack and injure mankind;” also, that the defendant “wrongfully and negligently suffered the said horse to go at large in and upon the public streets,” etc. The proof as to the disposition of the horse was only to the effect that he was young and playful, and, when loose in the street, was accustomed to run and kick in the air, but had never been seen to kick at any person. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no proof that the horse was vicious, which was refused. The defendant also requested the court to charge that there was no proof that the horse was possessed of any vicious propensity, or mischievous habit, which required the defendant to exercise special care over him; which the court declined to charge. The court did charge, that “it was for the jury to find, under the evidence, whether the defendant was or was not guilty of negligence in permitting the animal, which did the injury complained of, to run at large, as detailed by the witnesses on the part of the plaintiff,” etc.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $500, which was affirmed, on appeal, at the General Term, and the defendant appeals to this court.

DWIGHT, J. I agree with the counsel for the defendant that there is no proof in the case to sustain the allegation in the complaint, that this horse was vicious and accustomed to attack and injure mankind. The fact that a horse is young and playful, that he kicks in the air, and runs and gambols when loose in the street, is no proof of a malicious or vicious disposition. But I regard the allegation as unnecessary, and the absence of proof on the point as not affecting the right to recover. The finding of the jury, under the charge of the court, was clearly to the effect that the defendant was guilty of negligence in suffering his horse to go at large upon the sidewalk, as shown in the case. And there was a sufficient allegation to that effect in the complaint. It is not necessary that a horse should be vicious to make the owner responsible for injury done by him through the owner’s negligence. The vice of the animal is an essential fact only when, but for it, the conduct of the owner would be free from fault. If the most gentle horse be driven so negligently as to do injury to persons or property, the owner or driver will be responsible. Certainly, not less so if the horse be negligently turned loose in the street without restraint or control. The motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The only question in the case was that propounded by the court to the jury, “was the defendant guilty of negligence in permitting the horse to go at large in the street?” The court, I think, might very properly have charged as requested by the defendant, that there was no proof to justify the jury in finding that the horse was possessed of any vicious propensity or mischievous habit. And, yet, it is, in one sense, a mischievous habit for a horse to run and play in the public streets. Though it is no proof of a mischievous disposition, it is liable to produce mischievous results. There was, therefore, no error in the refusal to charge as requested. The instructions of the court to the jury were correct, and the verdict is conclusive upon all the questions in the case.

_The judgment must be affirmed._

[The opinion of GROVER, J., is omitted.][274]

DECKER _v._ GAMMON SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, MAINE, 1857. _Reported in 44 Maine Reports, 322._

This is an action on the case[275] to recover the value of a horse alleged to have been injured by the defendant’s horse, and comes forward on exceptions to the rulings of Goodenow, J.

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that at night, on the 13th of September, 1855, he put his horse into his field well and uninjured. The next morning, September 14, his horse and the defendant’s were together in his, the plaintiff’s close, the defendant’s horse, having, during the night, escaped from the defendant’s enclosure, or from the highway, into the close of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff’s horse was severely injured by the defendant’s horse, by kicking, biting, or striking with his fore feet, or in some other way, so that he died in a few days after.

The defendant requested the presiding judge to instruct the jury that to entitle the plaintiff to recover against the defendant he must prove, in addition to other necessary facts, that the defendant’s horse was vicious, and that the defendant had knowledge of such viciousness prior to the time of the alleged injury. The presiding judge declined giving these instructions, and directed the jury that if they should find that the defendant owned the horse alleged to have done the injury to the plaintiff’s horse, and if, at the time of the injury, he had escaped into the plaintiff’s close, and was wrongfully there, and while there occasioned the injury, and that the horse died in consequence, that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the value of the horse so injured. That it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the horse was vicious, or accustomed to acts of violence towards other animals or horses, or that the owner had notice of such viciousness or habits.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.[276]

DAVIS, J. There are three classes of cases in which the owners of animals are liable for injuries done by them to the persons or the property of others. And in suits of such injuries the allegations and proofs must be varied in each case, as the facts bring it within one or another of these classes.

1. The owner of wild beasts, or beasts that are in their nature vicious, is, under all circumstances, liable for injuries done by them. It is not necessary, in actions for injuries by such beasts, to allege or prove that the owner knew them to be mischievous, for he is conclusively presumed to have such knowledge; or that he was guilty of negligence in permitting them to be at large, for he is bound to keep them in at his peril.

“Though the owner have no particular notice that he did any such thing before, yet if he be a beast that is _ferae naturae_ if he get loose and do harm to any person, the owner is liable to an action for the damage.” 1 Hale, P. C. 430.

“If they are such as are naturally mischievous in their kind, in which the owner has no valuable property, he shall answer for hurt done by them, without any notice; but if they are of a tame nature, there must be notice of the ill quality.” Holt, C. J. Mason _v._ Keeling, 12 Mod. R. 332.

“The owner of beasts that are _ferae naturae_ must always keep them up, at his peril; and an action lies without notice of the quality of the beasts.” Rex _v._ Huggins, 2 Lord Raym. 1583.

2. If domestic animals, such as oxen and horses, injure any one, in person or property, if they are rightfully in the place where they do the mischief, the owner of such animals is not liable for such injury unless he knew that they were accustomed to do mischief. And in suits for such injuries, such knowledge must be alleged, and proved. For unless the owner knew that the beast was vicious he is not liable. If the owner had such knowledge he is liable.

“The gist of the action is the keeping of the animal after knowledge of its vicious propensities.” May _v._ Burdett, 58 Eng. C. L. 101.

“If the owner have knowledge of the quality of his beast, and it doth anybody hurt, he is chargeable in an action for it.” 1 Hale P. C. 430.

“An action lies not unless the owner knows of this quality.” Buxendin _v._ Sharp, 2 Salk. 662.

“If the owner puts a horse or an ox to grass in his field, and the horse or ox breaks the hedge and runs into the highway, and gores or kicks some passenger, an action will not lie against the owner unless he had notice that they had done such a thing before.” Mason _v._ Keeling, 12 Modern R. 332.

“If damage be done by any domestic animal, kept for use or convenience, the owner is not liable to an action on the ground of negligence, without proof that he knew that the animal was accustomed to do mischief.” Vrooman _v._ Sawyer, 13 Johns. R. 339.

3. The owner of domestic animals, if they are wrongfully in the place where they do any mischief, is liable for it, though he had no notice that they had been accustomed to do so before. In cases of this kind the ground of the action is that the animals were wrongfully in the place where the injury was done. And it is not necessary to allege or prove any knowledge on the part of the owner that they had previously been vicious.

“If a bull break into an enclosure of a neighbor, and there gore a horse so that he die, his owner is liable in an action of trespass _quare clausum fregit_, in which the value of the horse would be the just measure of damages.” Dolph _v._ Ferris, 7 Watts & Serg. R. 367.

“If the owner of a horse suffers it to go at large in the streets of a populous city he is answerable in an action on the case for a personal injury done by it to an individual without proof that he knew that the horse was vicious. The owner had no right to turn the horse loose in the streets.” Goodman _v._ Gay, 3 Harris R. 188. In this case the writ contained the allegation of knowledge on the part of the defendant; but the court held that it was not material and need not be proved.

The case before us is clearly within this class of cases last described. It is alleged in the writ that “the plaintiff had a valuable horse which was peaceably and of right depasturing in his own close, and the defendant was possessed of another horse, vicious and unruly, which was running at large where of right he ought not to be; and being so unlawfully at large, broke into the plaintiff’s close, and injured the plaintiff’s horse, &c.” It is also alleged that “the vicious habits of the horse were well known to the defendant;” but this allegation was not necessary, and may well be treated as surplusage. If the defendant had had a right to turn his horse upon the plaintiff’s close it would have been otherwise. But if the horse was wrongfully there the defendant was liable for any injury done by him, though he had no knowledge that the horse was vicious. The gravamen of the charge was that the horse was wrongfully upon the plaintiff’s close; and this was what was put in issue by the plea of not guilty.

Nor are these principles in conflict with the decision in the case of Van Leuven _v._ Lyke, 1 Comstock, 515. In that case the action was not sustained because the declaration was not for trespass _quare clausum_ with the other injuries alleged by way of aggravation. But in that case there was no allegation that the animal was wrongfully upon the plaintiff’s close; or that the injury was committed upon the plaintiff’s close. 4 Denio R. 127. And in the Court of Appeals it was expressly held that “if the plaintiff had stated in his declaration that the swine broke and entered his close, and there committed the injury complained of, and sustained his declaration by evidence, he would been entitled to recover all the damages thus sustained.” 1 Coms. 515, 518.

In the case before us, though the declaration is not technically for trespass _quare clausum_, it is distinctly alleged that the defendant’s horse, “being so unlawfully at large, broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, and injured the plaintiff’s horse,” which was there peaceably and of right depasturing. This was sufficient; and the instruction given to the jury, “that if the defendant’s horse, at the time of the injury, had escaped into the close, and was wrongfully there, and while there occasioned the injury, then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover,” was correct. And this being so, the instruction requested “that the plaintiff must prove, in addition to other necessary facts, that the defendant’s horse was vicious, and that the defendant had knowledge of such viciousness prior to the time of the injury,” was properly refused.

CUTTING, J., did not concur.

_Exceptions overruled._[277]

DOYLE _v._ VANCE SUPREME COURT, VICTORIA, APRIL 16, 1880. _Reported in 6 Victorian Law Reports, Cases at Law, 87._

STAWELL, C. J.[278] A dog belonging to the defendant got on land belonging to the plaintiff, how, does not appear, and barked at a horse of the plaintiff which was then grazing quietly in an inclosed field; the horse ran away, tried to leap over the fence, fell and broke its neck. The plaint was in the ordinary form, alleging a _scienter_ in the defendant. At the trial, an application was made to add a count for trespass by the dog on the plaintiff’s land. The application was granted, and though the amendment was not formally written on the plaint, it may now be considered as having been made. A verdict was given for the plaintiff, with £10 damages.

The defendant has appealed, and the question we have to consider is whether, as a matter of law, he is liable for the trespass committed by his dog. It would have been competent for the judge at the trial to have found that the dog was on the land, by the leave and license of the plaintiff; all the circumstances point to the probability of that being the case. But he has found that the dog was there as a trespasser. There are a number of cases in which judges have expressed _obiter dicta_, as to the non-liability of an owner for injuries done by his dog, and curious and singular reasons—that a dog was the companion of man (and the like)—have been assigned for those _dicta_; reasons which courts have treated as entitled to high respect, and which have not been dissented from. There is, however, a comparatively recent case, Read _v._ Edwards, _supra_,[279] in which an action was brought against the owner of a dog for having chased and destroyed game, the declaration alleging _scienter_ by the defendant. All the _dicta_ of the learned judges to which I have referred were cited in the argument, were commented on and received attention. The case was decided on another point, but Mr. Justice Willes, who delivered the judgment of the Court, said:—

“The question was much argued whether the owner of the dog is answerable in trespass for every unauthorized entry of the animal into the land of another, as in the case of an ox, and reasons were offered, which we need not now estimate, for a distinction in this respect between oxen, and dogs or cats, on account, first, of the difficulty or impossibility of keeping the latter under restraint; secondly, the slightness of the damage which their wandering ordinarily causes; thirdly, the common usage of mankind to allow them a wider liberty; and lastly, their not being considered in law so absolutely the chattels of the owner as to be the subject of larceny. It is not, however, necessary in the principal case to answer that question.”

The legitimate inference from these observations is that the question, whether the _dicta_ I have referred to are law, has not yet been decided, and that the subject is open for consideration. There may be very cogent reasons, socially, for exempting the owner from liability. But there is no reason which a court of law can recognize. Serious injury might be inflicted by a dog revelling in a highly-cultivated _parterre_, and can it with propriety be said that the owner of the garden can obtain no compensation? It has been decided that a dog can be distrained for _damage feasant_: Bunch _v._ Kennington, 1 Q. B. 679. There can be no question, if an ox were substituted for a dog, as having done the mischief complained of in the present case, the owner would be liable. Cox _v._ Burbidge, _supra_,[280] which was cited, does not apply. There, the defendant’s horse, being on the highway, kicked the plaintiff, a child who was playing there. The defendant was held not guilty of actionable negligence; but that was on the ground that the horse had a right to be on the highway, as well as the child, and was therefore not a trespasser.

In Lee _v._ Riley, _supra_,[281] through defect of fences which it was the defendant’s duty to repair, the defendant’s mare strayed in the night time from his close into an adjoining field, and so into a field of the plaintiff’s, in which was a horse. From some unexplained cause the animals quarrelled, and the result was that the plaintiff’s horse received a kick from the defendant’s mare, which broke its leg, and it was necessarily killed. It was held that the defendant was answerable for the mare’s trespass, and the damage was not too remote. The decision was based on the fact that the defendant’s mare trespassed on the plaintiff’s land, and that it was the duty of the owner of an animal to keep it from trespassing. In Ellis _v._ The Loftus Iron Co., _supra_,[282] the defendant’s horse having injured the plaintiff’s mare by biting and kicking her through the fence separating the plaintiff’s land from the defendants’, it was held that there was a trespass by the act of the defendants’ horse, for which the defendants were liable, apart from any question of negligence on their part.

The owner of an animal is therefore responsible for any damage fairly resulting from a trespass by that animal. The damage here has resulted from the trespass, and the verdict will therefore stand.

The argument based upon “The Dog Act 1864” (No. 229), sec. 15, enacting that the owner of a dog shall be liable for injury done to sheep, without proof of _scienter_, should be noticed; it was urged that the necessity for passing such an enactment implied that there was previously no liability. But that argument goes too far. One part of the enactment is declaratory, and the other is new.

BARRY, J. I am of the same opinion. It is remarkable that this question should not have been settled until now, and, apparently from a desire to avoid overruling old cases which had been decided on the most subtle reasons, the judges have abstained from considering the question in a broad aspect. The old reports abound with expressions of peculiar regard for dogs and cats; and Lord Tenterden does not think it beneath his dignity to quote, in his book on shipping, “if mice eat the cargo, and thereby occasion no small injury to the merchant, the master must make good the loss, because he is guilty of a fault; yet if he had cats on board his ship, he shall be excused.” One reason given for the exemption of liability, so far as the dog is concerned, is on account of his familiarity with man. But we cannot regard these every day questions in the same subtle way as they were regarded three hundred years ago. The doctrine of trespass is considered on much more reasonable grounds in these days. Where sheep, oxen, or horses, commit a trespass, it has always been held that the owner is liable; and that liability has been extended to poultry, and poultry are as much domesticated as a dog or a cat. In Brown _v._ Giles, 1 C. & P. 118, Mr. Justice Park is reported to have said that he was decidedly of opinion that a dog jumping into a field without the consent of its master, not only was not a trespass, but was no trespass at all on which an action could be maintained. But that remark was merely _obiter_; the case was decided for the plaintiff on another point. The learned judge has found that there was a trespass. The dog was left to roam at its discretion, uncontrolled by its master.

STEPHEN, J. I also concur. It seems to have been considered, in old times, that there was a marked distinction between trespass by a dog, and trespass by an ox. Now, as a general rule, no such distinction is made. I cannot see why there should be any. This case illustrates how far the law ought to be altered, so as to preserve its accordance with change of time and place. Of course, the Court cannot alter the clearly-expressed language of an act of Parliament, though the reason for it may have ceased. And so also as to actual decisions of the Courts. If there is reason to alter the law, the legislature must do it. But on this question, there have been no more than _obiter dicta_ based upon reasons which have no longer any existence. At one time a dog could not be the subject of a theft. The Court is at liberty, within reasonable limits, to meet the changed circumstances of the present day. I can see no sound reason why there should be a difference between the case of trespass by a dog, and one by an ox.

_Appeal dismissed._[283]

TROTH _v._ WILLS SUPERIOR COURT, PENNSYLVANIA, JULY 29, 1898. _Reported in 8 Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, 1._

Trespass for personal injuries. Before Brégy, J.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, a lady about fifty-five years of age, was temporarily living with her son, in a small country place, and the cow of the defendant strayed into the garden belonging to the son. The plaintiff, seeing the cow in the garden, came out of her son’s house and attempted to drive the cow out of the garden back into the pasture field, from where she entered into the garden. The plaintiff alleges that while so driving the cow out of the garden back into the field, the cow deliberately went towards the field, and that she followed closely behind the cow, when the cow suddenly turned her head and butted the plaintiff in the abdomen, and hence her injuries.[284]

Defendant requested (Request No. 5) a ruling, that, under all the evidence, the verdict should be for the defendant. The court declined so to rule. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

SMITH, J. It is not necessary, in disposing of this case, to determine the liability of the owner of a domestic animal for all its acts while trespassing upon another’s land. In such cases, the primary trespass is the entry of the animal upon the land; the attendant damage for which the owner may be held liable is matter of aggravation. The minimum liability of the owner is for acts arising from the natural propensities of the species, and from special characteristics and acquired habits of the individual of which the owner has notice. When the primary trespass is the wilful act of the owner, he may be held to a larger measure of responsibility; thus if he take a dog into a field where he is himself a trespasser, and the dog there kills or injures sheep, this, though its first offence, may be laid as an aggravation of the trespass: Beckwith _v._ Shordike, Burr. 2092; Michael _v._ Alestree, 2 Lev. 172, cited in Dolph _v._ Ferris, 7 W. & S. 367. Beyond this, the authorities appear unsettled, and principle and analogy form the only guide. Doubtless there may be mischief so far independent of the primary trespass, and unrelated to the propensity or habit leading to this, that it cannot be deemed matter of aggravation. In my view, however, the mischievous act, when incident to the primary trespass, in any of its aspects, or so closely associated with it as to form a substantive part or an immediate result of it, is a legitimate matter of aggravation, for which the owner should be held liable. In such case, the propensity or habit leading to the primary trespass may be regarded as the proximate cause of the resulting injury. If, for example, trespassing cattle, in order to reach the vegetation in a hotbed, break its glass covering, the owner must be held liable for this injury, though cattle are not by nature prone to break glass. Such breaking is incident to the primary trespass, and grows out of the propensity leading to this. If an animal injure a person lawfully trying to prevent it from trespassing, the owner should be held liable, though the injury be one which the animal is not prone to commit. In such case the mischievous act is closely associated with the primary trespass, and in fact grows directly out of it. The same principle must govern if a person be injured in trying to prevent the continuance of a trespass, or of acts forming an aggravation of it.

* * * * *

In this view of the principles which should govern the determination of this case, the injury to the plaintiff must be deemed an aggravation of the trespass committed by the animal in entering the garden. This injury, indeed, is not such as a cow is ordinarily prone to commit; and there is no evidence that the defendant’s cow had contracted the habit of making such assaults. But the act of the animal was one to which a creature of that kind is naturally disposed on being disturbed while feeding; and it was so directly associated with the primary trespass that, unless the plaintiff’s right to prevent a continuance of this be denied, there can be no ground for questioning the liability of the owner. This right cannot be controverted, for under the circumstances the act of the plaintiff is to be regarded as that of the tenant of the premises. The act of the animal by which the plaintiff was injured, so far from being independent of the primary trespass, or unrelated to it, grew directly out of the propensity in which this originated, coupled with the plaintiff’s attempt to prevent its continuance. The defendant’s fifth point was therefore properly refused. The case was submitted to the jury with suitable instructions, and their finding on the questions involved was concurred in by the trial court.

_The judgment is affirmed._

WICKHAM, J. (dissenting.) ... We are called on to determine whether the rule, so far as our authority goes, shall be established in Pennsylvania, that the owner of a useful, gentle, and domestic animal, belonging to a class recognized from the earliest times as harmless to man, watched, driven to and from the pasture fields, fed and milked by women and children the world over, shall be responsible for the conduct of the animal, foreign to its well-known nature and habits, if it happen that through any negligence of such owner, or his servant, it is permitted to trespass on the land of another, and there injures a third party.

The authorities on this subject are numerous and impossible to reconcile. Some of them rest on statutes or ordinances, not always adverted to in the text-books or digests, in which they are hastily cited. Others are based on the theory, that the right to recover exists because of the trespass to realty, and that any unusual and not to be expected injury caused by the animal to the person of the owner of the land, or his other property, must be alleged and proved by way of aggravation of damages. Another class of cases holds that all injuries committed by an animal, in a place where it has no right to be, must be compensated for by the owner. It is on the latter theory of the law that the plaintiff must recover, if she can sustain her action, as we do not deem it worth while to notice the few erratic and sporadic cases, seemingly decided on no discoverable reason, except an assumed natural equity, that any one injured by anything, animate or inanimate, belonging to another, should be compensated by the owner.

* * * * *

As has already been observed, the plaintiff was not the owner of the land trespassed upon, and it may be remarked that she is aided by no statute.

* * * * *

It is argued that the appellant’s cow was vicious. There is no evidence even suggesting such a tendency, and the learned trial judge so instructed the jury. Conceding that the animal was breachy, as alleged by the plaintiff, this indicated no ferocity or proneness to attack people. Any one, acquainted with the nature and habits of horses and cows, knows that usually the most intelligent and gentle animals of these species are the most cunning and successful in finding their way into forbidden inclosures and the readiest to run away when discovered. As was said in Keshan _v._ Gates, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y. Sup. Ct.) 288: “The vicious habits or propensities which the owner of an animal must, when known to him, guard against, are such as are directly dangerous, such as kicking and biting in horses, and hooking in horned animals, and biting in dogs. These habits or propensities may be indulged in at any moment and are inevitably dangerous.”

The adoption of the rule, sanctioned by the decisions of many respectable tribunals in other states, that the owner of every trespassing domestic animal is liable merely because it is a trespasser for all injuries it may commit, however contrary to its usual nature and disposition, and regardless of his knowledge of its special viciousness, might often lead to strange and unthought-of consequences. For instance, suppose that a pet lamb, always regarded as a harmless playmate of children, is permitted to wander from its owner’s premises into those of a neighbor (this as well as the next illustration is not a supposititious case), and there, in play or anger, butts a child from a high veranda, or a trespassing hatching hen, discovered on its nest by the little son of the owner of the premises, pecks out the eye of the boy as he is lawfully trying to drive it away, the unfortunate owner would be liable in each instance for all the resulting damages. In vain would he urge that the animal causing the injury belonged to a class ordinarily docile in its nature and harmless to man; that he had no reason to anticipate that it would do such unusual mischief; and that he was only responsible for the things hens, lambs, and milch cows usually do and may be expected to do when trespassing, that is, for the natural and probable consequences of their trespasses. The answer, under the rule we are considering, would be: “You were guilty of negligence in permitting your animal to trespass, and therefore you are liable for all its freaks, for the consequences of the wrong, near and remote, probable and improbable, for the things you had reason to anticipate, and those which no one would be likely to think could happen, save as a remote possibility.” The results which might follow the application of such a rule demand its rejection, where it has not already been fully adopted.

The only negligence of the defendant revealed by the evidence was his failure to keep his cow out of the garden of the plaintiff’s son. To the latter, the defendant would certainly be liable for the harm done to the realty, but as he had no notice or knowledge of any vicious or ferocious propensity on the part of the animal, we do not think that he should be mulcted in damages for the unfortunate injury suffered by the plaintiff, nor, for that matter, even to the owner of the land, had such owner been injured in like manner. The appellant’s fifth point, asking the court to direct a verdict in his favor, should have been affirmed.

* * * * *

PORTER, J., concurred in the dissenting opinion of WICKHAM, J.[285]

SECTION III DANGEROUS USE OF LAND

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.

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.”

This seems to be substantially an adoption of the early authorities, and an extension of the ancient practice of holding the defendant liable, in some cases, on the partial view that regarded the misfortune of the plaintiff upon whom a damage had fallen, and required no legal reason for transferring the damage to the defendant. The ancient rule was, that a person in whose house, or on whose land, a fire accidentally originated, which spread to his neighbor’s property and destroyed it, must make good the loss. Filliter _v._ Phippard, 11 A. & E. N. S. 347, 354; Tubervil _v._ Stamp, 1 Comyns, 32; S. C. 1 Salk. 13; Com. Dig.,

## Action upon the case for Negligence (A 6); 1 Arch. N. P. 539; Fletcher

_v._ Rylands, 3 H. & C. 790, 793; Russell _v._ Fabyan, 34 N. H. 218, 225. No inquiry was made into the reason of putting upon him his neighbor’s loss as well as his own. The rule of such cases is applied, by Blackburn, to everything which a man brings on his land, which will, if it escape, naturally do damage. One result of such a doctrine is, that every one building a fire on his own hearth, for necessary purposes, with the utmost care, does so at the peril, not only of losing his own house, but of being irretrievably ruined if a spark from his chimney starts a conflagration which lays waste the neighborhood. “In conflict with the rule, as laid down in the English cases, is a class of cases in reference to damage from fire communicated from the adjoining premises. Fire, like water or steam, is likely to produce mischief if it escapes and goes beyond control; and yet it has never been held in this country that one building a fire upon his own premises can be made liable if it escapes upon his neighbor’s premises, and does him damage without proof of negligence.” Losee _v._ Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476, 487.

Everything that a man can bring on his land is capable of escaping,—against his will, and without his fault, with or without assistance, in some form, solid, liquid, or gaseous, changed or unchanged by the transforming processes of nature or art,—and of doing damage after its escape. Moreover, if there is a legal principle that makes a man liable for the natural consequences of the escape of things which he brings on his land, the application of such a principle cannot be limited to those things; it must be applied to all his acts that disturb the original order of creation; or, at least, to all things which he undertakes to possess or control anywhere, and which were not used and enjoyed in what is called the natural or primitive condition of mankind, whatever that may have been. This is going back a long way for a standard of legal rights, and adopting an arbitrary test of responsibility that confounds all degrees of danger, pays no heed to the essential elements of actual fault, puts a clog upon natural and reasonably necessary uses of matter, and tends to embarrass and obstruct much of the work which it seems to be man’s duty carefully to do. The distinction made by Lord Cairns, Rylands _v._ Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330, between a natural and a non-natural use of land, if he meant anything more than the difference between a reasonable use and an unreasonable one, is not established in the law. Even if the arbitrary test were applied only to things which a man brings on his land, it would still recognize the peculiar rights of savage life in a wilderness, ignore the rights growing out of a civilized state of society, and make a distinction not warranted by the enlightened spirit of the common law: it would impose a penalty upon efforts, made in a reasonable, skilful, and careful manner, to rise above a condition of barbarism. It is impossible that legal principle can throw so serious an obstacle in the way of progress and improvement. Natural rights are, in general, legal rights; and the rights of civilization are, in a legal sense, as natural as any others. “Most of the rights of property, as well as of person, in the social state, are not absolute but relative,” Losee _v._ Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 485; and, if men ever were in any other than the social state, it is neither necessary nor expedient that they should now govern themselves on the theory that they ought to live in some other state. The common law does not usually establish tests of responsibility on any other basis than the propriety of their living in the social state, and the relative and qualified character of the rights incident to that state.

In Fletcher _v._ Rylands, L. R. 1 Ex. 286, 287, Mr. Justice Blackburn, commenting upon the remark of Mr. Baron Martin, “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,” says,—“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 Docks 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.” This would be authority for holding, in the present case, that the plaintiff, by having his post near the street, took upon himself the risk of its being broken by an inevitable accident carrying a traveller off the street. But such a doctrine would open more questions, and more difficult ones, than it would settle. At what distance from a highway would an object be near it? What part of London is not near a street? And then, as the defendant had as good a right to be at home with his horses as to be in the highway, why might not his neighbor, by electing to live in an inhabited country, as well be held to take upon himself the risk of an inevitable accident happening by reason of the country being inhabited, as to assume a highway risk by living near a road? If neighborhood is the test, who are a man’s neighbors but the whole human race? If a person, by remaining in England, is held to take upon himself one class of the inevitable dangers of that country because he could avoid that class by migrating to a region of solitude, why should he not, for a like reason, also be held to expose himself voluntarily to other classes of the inevitable dangers of that country? And where does this reasoning end?

It is not improbable that the rules of liability for damage done by brutes or by fire, found in the early English cases, were introduced by sacerdotal influence, from what was supposed to be the Roman or the Hebrew law. 7 Am. L. Rev. 652, note; 1 Domat Civil Law (Strahan’s translation, 2d ed.), 304, 305, 306, 312, 313; Exodus xxi 28–32, 36; xxii. 5, 6, 9. It would not be singular if these rules should be spontaneously produced at a certain period in the life of any community. Where they first appeared is of little consequence in the present inquiry. They were certainly introduced in England at an immature stage of English jurisprudence, and an undeveloped state of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, when the nation had not settled down to those modern, progressive, industrial pursuits which the spirit of the common law, adapted to all conditions of society, encourages and defends. They were introduced when the development of many of the rational rules now universally recognized as principles of the common law had not been demanded by the growth of intelligence, trade, and productive enterprise,—when the common law had not been set forth in the precedents, as a coherent and logical system on many subjects other than the tenures of real estate. At all events, whatever may be said of the origin of those rules, to extend them, as they were extended in Rylands _v._ Fletcher, seems to us contrary to the analogies and the general principles of the common law, as now established. To extend them to the present case would be contrary to American authority as well as to our understanding of legal principles.

The difficulty under which the plaintiff might labor in proving the culpability of the defendant,—which is sometimes given as a reason for imposing an absolute liability without evidence of negligence,—Rixford _v._ Smith, 52 N. H. 355, 359, or changing the burden of proof, Lisbon _v._ Lyman, 49 N. H. 553, 568, 569, 574, 575, seems not to have been given in the English cases relating to damage done by brutes or fire. And, however large or small the class of cases in which such a difficulty may be the foundation of a rule of law, since the difficulty has been so much reduced by the abolition of witness disabilities, the present case is not one of that class.

There are many cases where a man is held liable for taking, converting (C. R. Co. _v._ Foster, 51 N. H. 490) or destroying property, or doing something else, or causing it to be done, intentionally, under a claim of right, and without any actual fault. “Probably one half of the cases in which trespass _de bonis asportatis_ is maintained, arise from a mere misapprehension of legal rights.” Metcalf, J., in Stanley _v._ Gaylord, 1 Cush. 536, 551. When a defendant erroneously supposed, without any fault of either party, that he had a right to do what he did, and his act, done in the assertion of his supposed right, turns out to have been an interference with the plaintiff’s property, he is generally held to have assumed the risk of maintaining the right which he asserted, and the responsibility of the natural consequences of his voluntary act. But when there was no fault on his part, and the damage was not caused by his voluntary and intended act; or by an act of which he knew, or ought to have known, the damage would be a necessary, probable, or natural consequence; or by an act which he knew or ought to have known, to be unlawful,—we understand the general rule to be, that he is not liable. Vincent _v._ Stinehour, 7 Vt. 62; Aaron _v._ State, 31 Ga. 167; Morris _v._ Platt, 32 Conn. 75; and Judge Redfield’s note to that case in 4 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 532; Townshend on Slander, secs. 67, 88, p. 128, n. 1 (2d ed.). In Brown _v._ Kendall, 6 Cush. 292, the defendant, having interfered to part his dog and the plaintiff’s which were fighting, in raising a stick for that purpose accidentally struck the plaintiff, and injured him. It was held, that parting the dogs was a lawful and proper act which the defendant might do by the use of proper and safe means; and that if the plaintiff’s injury was caused by such an act done with due care and all proper precautions, the defendant was not liable. In the decision, there is the important suggestion that some of the apparent confusion in the authorities has arisen from discussions of the question whether a party’s remedy is in trespass or case, and from the statement that when the injury comes from a direct act, trespass lies, and when the damage is consequential, case is the proper form of

## action,—the remark concerning the immediate effect of an act being made

with reference to damage for which it is admitted there is a remedy of some kind, and on the question of the proper remedy, not on the general question of liability. Judge Shaw, delivering the opinion of the court, said: “We think, as the result of all the authorities, the rule is correctly stated by Mr. Greenleaf, that the plaintiff must come prepared with evidence to show either that the _intention_ was unlawful, or that the defendant was _in fault_; for if the injury was unavoidable, and the conduct of the defendant was free from blame, he will not be liable. 2 Greenl. Ev., secs. 85 to 92; Wakeman _v._ Robinson, 1 Bing. 213. If, in the prosecution of a lawful act, a casualty purely accidental arises, no

## action can be supported for an injury arising therefrom. Davis _v._

Saunders, 2 Chit. R. 639; Com. Dig. Battery, A. (Day’s ed.) and notes; Vincent _v._ Stinehour, 7 Vt. 62;” James _v._ Campbell, 5 C. & P. 372; Alderson _v._ Waistell, 1 C. & K. 358.

Whatever may be the rule or the exception, or the reason of it, in case of insanity, Weaver _v._ Ward, Hob. 134; Com. Dig. Battery, A. note _d_, Hammond’s ed.; Dormay _v._ Borradaile, 5 M. G. & S. 380; Sedgwick on Damages, 455, 456, 2d ed.; Morse _v._ Crawford, 17 Vt. 499; Dickinson _v._ Barber, 9 Mass. 225; Krom _v._ Schoonmaker, 3 Barb. 647; Horner _v._ Marshall, 5 Munf. 466; Yeates _v._ Reed, 4 Blackf. 463, and whatever may be the full legal definitions of necessity, inevitable danger, and unavoidable accident, the occurrence complained of in this case was one for which the defendant is not liable, unless every one is liable for all damage done by superior force overpowering him, and using him or his property as an instrument of violence. The defendant, being without fault, was as innocent as if the pole of his wagon had been hurled on the plaintiff’s land by a whirlwind, or he himself, by a stronger man, had been thrown through the plaintiff’s window. Upon the facts stated, taken in the sense in which we understand them, the defendant is entitled to judgment. 1 Hilliard on Torts, ch. 3, 3d ed.; Losee _v._ Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476; Parrot _v._ Wells, 15 Wall. 524, 537; Roche _v._ M. G. L. Co., 5 Wis. 55; Eastman _v._ Co., 44 N. H. 143, 156.

_Case discharged._

McCORD RUBBER CO. _v._ St. JOSEPH WATER CO. SUPREME COURT, MISSOURI, MAY 25, 1904. _Reported in 181 Missouri Reports, 678._

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.

## Action for damages for the flooding of plaintiff’s cellar with water

caused by defendant’s negligence, whereby a large quantity of its goods stored in the cellar were damaged. Answer, a general denial.[296]

Defendant company supplied water distributed through pipes and mains from reservoirs. A service pipe from a main carried water to a building occupied by one August. There was a bursting in a “fish trap” used in connection with the service pipe. Water escaped on to the premises of August, and from thence to the adjoining premises of the plaintiff company. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. In view of the instructions given, this verdict must be regarded as negativing the allegations of negligence contained in the plaintiff’s pleading.

Judgment having been rendered for defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

[Arguments and part of opinion omitted.]

VALLIANT, J.... III. The plaintiff contends, however, that the defendants are liable regardless of whether they were guilty of any negligence directly causing the accident. This contention rests in the theory that one who brings into his premises anything that is liable to escape, and liable to inflict injury on his neighbors if it should escape, brings it there at his peril, and is responsible for any injury that it may cause.

That contention rests for its authority on the decision in Rylands _v._ Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330. In the briefs of the learned counsel for respondents, reference is made to a large number of authorities going to show that the doctrine of Rylands _v._ Fletcher has not been approved generally in America, and that it has been modified in England. Among the authorities so referred to are Griffith _v._ Lewis, 17 Mo. App. 605; Murphy _v._ Gillum, 73 Mo. App. 487; Cooley on Torts, 570; Losee _v._ Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476; Brown _v._ Collins, 53 N. H. 442.

But in the facts, the case at bar is distinguished from Rylands _v._ Fletcher.

[After stating the facts of Rylands _v._ Fletcher, and quoting from the opinion of Lord Chancellor CAIRNS.] There is a wide difference between a great volume of water collected in a reservoir in dangerous proximity to the premises of another and water brought into a house through pipes in the manner usual in all cities, for the ordinary use of the occupants of the house. Whilst water so brought into a house cannot literally be said to have come in in the course of what might be called in the language above quoted of the Lord Chancellor “natural user” of the premises, yet it is brought in by the method universally in use in cities and is not to be treated as an unnatural gathering of a dangerous agent. The law applicable to the caging of ferocious animals is not applicable to water brought into a house by pipes in the usual manner.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff tried their case on the theory that the defendants were negligent, and that is the only theory on which they could have tried it.

* * * * *

_Judgment affirmed._[297]

GILES _v._ WALKER IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION, MARCH 27, 1890. _Reported in Law Reports, 24 Queen’s Bench Division, 656._

Appeal from the Leicester County Court.

The defendant, a farmer, occupied land which had originally been forest land, but which had some years prior to 1883, when the defendant’s occupation of it commenced, been brought into cultivation by the then occupier. The forest land prior to cultivation did not bear thistles; but immediately upon its being cultivated thistles sprang up all over it. The defendant neglected to mow the thistles periodically so as to prevent them from seeding, and in the years 1887 and 1888 there were thousands of thistles on his land in full seed. The consequence was that the thistle seeds were blown by the wind in large quantities on to the adjoining land of the plaintiff, where they took root and did damage. The plaintiff sued the defendant for such damage in the county court. The judge left to the jury the question whether the defendant in not cutting the thistles had been guilty of negligence. The jury found that he was negligent, and judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.

_Toller_, for the defendant. The facts of this case do not establish any cause of action. The judge was wrong in leaving the question of negligence to the jury. Before a person can be charged with negligence, it must be shown that there is a duty on him to take care. But here there is no such duty. The defendant did not bring the thistles on to his land; they grew there naturally. [He was stopped by the court.]

_R. Bray_, for the plaintiff. If the defendant’s predecessor had left the land in its original condition as forest land the thistles would never have grown. By bringing it into cultivation, and so disturbing the natural condition of things, he caused the thistles to grow, thereby creating a nuisance on the land just as much as if he had intentionally grown them. The defendant, by entering into occupation of the land with the nuisance on it, was under a duty to prevent damage from thereby accruing to his neighbor. The case resembles that of Crowhurst _v._ Amersham Burial Board, 4 Ex. D. 5, where the defendants were held responsible for allowing the branches of their yew trees to grow over their boundary, whereby a horse of the plaintiff, being placed at pasture in the adjoining field, ate some of the yew twigs and died.

LORD COLERIDGE, C. J. I never heard of such an action as this. There can be no duty as between adjoining occupiers to cut the thistles, which are the natural growth of the soil. The appeal must be allowed.

LORD ESHER, M. R. I am of the same opinion.

_Appeal allowed._[298]

GALVESTON, H. & S. A. R. CO. _v._ SPINKS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, TEXAS, MAY 28, 1896. _Reported in 13 Texas Civil Appeals, 542._

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice. This case is submitted upon the facts found by the court below, upon an assignment which questions the correctness of the conclusion of law based upon them. In brief, those facts are, that appellant owns in fee a strip of land upon which its railroad is laid, and on each side of which lie cultivated lands owned by appellee. Upon the land owned by appellant there stands a natural growth of tall trees which shade and injure the crops upon appellee’s adjacent land, and also saps such land of its fertility. For this injury to crops and land the judgment appealed from was rendered. No act of defendant is shown beyond the construction and maintenance of its road and its omission to cut down its trees, it having removed only such portion of them as was necessary to permit the repair of its road and the operation of its trains. We know of no principle of law which authorizes the judgment. The land and the trees are the property of appellant, and it has the same right to them that appellee has to his land and crops. The exercise of one right is not an invasion of the other. If the presence of the trees impairs the productiveness of appellee’s land, or if the cultivation of the latter would injure the trees, these results would constitute no wrong by one owner to the other, but would only be the incidents of their ownership. No breach of any duty owed by appellant to appellee is shown. It is not stated that the roots or the branches of the trees penetrate or overhang appellee’s land. If they did, appellee had the right to remove such roots or branches as entered or overhung his land, or if damage was caused by them, it may be true that he could maintain an action for such damage. Wood on Nuisances, 112, 113, 306.

But no such case is made here either in the statement of the cause of

## action or in the facts found by the court. It is not shown that appellee

has not kept its right of way in proper condition for the safe and proper operation of its trains, but the contrary is inferable from the findings. Had it failed to do so, this might be a breach of the duty which it owed to those interested in the manner in which it conducted its road, but not of one due to appellee to protect his land and crops from such damage as that of which he complains. It is urged that as there is no statement of facts, we should presume that enough was shown to sustain the judgment. But the conclusions of the trial judge show affirmatively the facts upon which the judgment is rendered, and the conclusion of law based upon those facts was excepted to by appellant in the court below and is erroneous. It is not a case where there is an omission to find some fact, but one in which a ruling erroneous in law is grounded upon facts found.

_Reversed and rendered._

BACHELDER _v._ HEAGAN SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, MAINE, JULY TERM, 1840. _Reported in 18 Maine Reports, 32._

The action was trespass on the case, to recover damages, alleged to have been done to the plaintiffs’ land, and to the fences and growth thereon, by the negligence of the defendant in setting a fire on his own land, near to the land of the plaintiffs, and in not carefully keeping the same.

At the trial before Emery, J., evidence was introduced by both parties. The counsel for the plaintiffs requested the judge to instruct the jury, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict, if they were satisfied from the evidence, that the damage was occasioned by the defendant’s fire, unless he satisfied them that it was not through negligence or mismanagement on his part. The judge instructed the jury, that the burthen of proof was upon the plaintiffs to satisfy them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the damage was occasioned by the defendant’s fire, and through the carelessness and negligence of the defendant in keeping the same; such carelessness and negligence being alleged in the plaintiffs’ declaration, and it not being contended by the plaintiffs that the fire was wilfully and maliciously set by the defendant. On the return of a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiffs filed exceptions to the ruling of the judge.[299]

The opinion of the Court was by

WESTON, C. J. By the ancient common law, or custom of the realm, if a house took fire, the owner was held answerable for any injury thereby occasioned to others. This was probably founded upon some presumed negligence or carelessness, not susceptible of proof. The hardship of this rule was corrected by the statute of 6 Ann. c. 31, which exempted the owner from liability, where the fire was occasioned by accident. The rule does not appear to have been applied to the owner of a field, where a fire may have been kindled. It may frequently be necessary to burn stubble or other matter which encumbers the ground. It is a lawful act, unless kindled at an improper time or carelessly managed. Baron Comyns states, that an action of the case lies, at common law, against the owner of a house which takes fire, by which another is injured, and adds, “so if a fire be kindled in a yard or close, to burn stubble, and by negligence it burns corn in an adjoining close.” Com. Dig. Action of the Case for Negligence, A. 6.

In Clark _v._ Foot, 8 Johns. R. 421, it was held, that if A. sets fire to his own fallow ground, as he may lawfully do, which communicates to and fires the woodland of B., his neighbor, no action lies against A., unless there was some negligence or misconduct in him or his servants. And this is a fair illustration of the common law, upon which the action depends. Negligence or misconduct is the gist of the action. And this must be proved. In certain cases, as in actions against innkeepers and common carriers, it is presumed, by the policy of the law, where property is lost which is confided to their care. But in ordinary cases, of which the one before us is not an exception, where the action depends on negligence, the burthen of proof is upon the plaintiff. This is common learning, and applies to all affirmative averments necessary to maintain an action. The defendant’s fire was lawfully kindled on his own land. It is an element appropriated to many valuable and useful purposes; but which may become destructive from causes not subject to human control. Hence the fact, that an injury has been done to others, is not in itself evidence of negligence. The party who avers the fact is bound to satisfy the jury upon this point, before he can be entitled to a verdict. In our opinion, the direction of the presiding judge was correct as to the burthen of the proof.

_Judgment on the verdict._[300]

HEEG _v._ LICHT COURT OF APPEALS, NEW YORK, APRIL 6, 1880. _Reported in 80 New York Reports, 579._

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a verdict. (Reported below, 16 Hun, 257.)

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s buildings, alleged to have been caused by the explosion of a powder magazine on the premises of defendant; also to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and storing upon his premises fire-works or other explosive substances.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

MILLER, J. This action is sought to be maintained upon the ground that the manufacturing and storing of fire-works, and the use and keeping of materials of a dangerous and explosive character for that purpose, constituted a private nuisance for which the defendant was liable to respond in damages, without regard to the question whether he was chargeable with carelessness or negligence. The defendant had constructed a powder magazine upon his premises, with the usual safeguards, in which he kept stored a quantity of powder which, without any apparent cause, exploded and caused the injury complained of. The judge upon the trial charged the jury that they must find for the defendant, unless they found that the defendant carelessly and negligently kept the gunpowder upon his premises. The judge refused to charge that the powder magazine was dangerous in itself to plaintiff and his property, and was a private nuisance, and the defendant was liable to the plaintiff whether it was carelessly kept or not; and the plaintiff duly excepted to the charge and the refusal to charge.

We think that the charge made was erroneous and not warranted by the facts presented upon the trial. The defendant had erected a building and stored materials therein, which from their character were liable to and actually did explode, causing injury to the plaintiff. The fact that the explosion took place tends to establish that the magazine was dangerous and liable to cause damage to the property of persons residing in the vicinity. The locality [legality?] of works of this description must depend upon the neighborhood in which they are situated. In a city, with buildings immediately contiguous and persons constantly passing, there could be no question that such an erection would be unlawful and unauthorized. An explosion under such circumstances, independent of any municipal regulations, would render the owner amenable for all damages arising therefrom. That the defendant’s establishment was outside of the territorial limits of a city does not relieve the owner from responsibility or alter the case, if the dangerous erection was in close contiguity with dwelling-houses or buildings which might be injured or destroyed in case of an explosion. The fact that the magazine was liable to such a contingency, which could not be guarded against or averted by the greatest degree of care and vigilance, evinces its dangerous character, and might in some localities render it a private nuisance. In such a case the rule which exonerates a party engaged in a lawful business, when free from negligence, has no application. The keeping or manufacturing of gunpowder or of fire-works does not necessarily constitute a nuisance _per se_. That depends upon the locality, the quantity, and the surrounding circumstances, and not entirely upon the degree of care used. In the case at bar it should have been left for the jury to determine whether from the dangerous character of the defendant’s business, the proximity to other buildings, and all the facts proved upon the trial, the defendant was chargeable with maintaining a private nuisance and answerable for the damages arising from the explosion.

A private nuisance is defined to be anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another. 3 Bl. Com. 216. Any unwarrantable, unreasonable, or unlawful use by a person of his own property, real or personal, to the injury of another, comes within the definition stated, and renders the owner or possessor liable for all damages arising from such use. Wood’s Law of Nuis., § 1, and authorities cited. The cases which are regarded as private nuisances are numerous, and the books are full of decisions holding the parties answerable for the injuries which result from their being maintained. The rule is of universal application that while a man may prosecute such business as he chooses on his own premises, he has no right to erect and maintain a nuisance to the injury of an adjoining proprietor or of his neighbors, even in the pursuit of a lawful trade. Aldred’s Case, 9 Coke, 58; Brady _v._ Weeks, 3 Barb. 159; Dubois _v._ Budlong, 15 Abb. 445; Wier’s Appeal, 74 Penn. St. 230.

While a class of the reported cases relates to the prosecution of a legitimate business, which of itself produces inconvenience and injury to others, another class refers to acts done on the premises of the owner which are of themselves dangerous to the property and the persons of others who may reside in the vicinity, or who may by chance be passing along or in the neighborhood of the same. Of the former class are cases of slaughter-houses, fat and offal boiling establishments, hog-styes or tallow manufactories, in or near a city, which are offensive to the senses and render the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. Catlin _v._ Valentine, 9 Pai. 575; Brady _v._ Weeks, 3 Barb. 157; Dubois _v._ Budlong, 15 Abb. 445; Rex _v._ White, 1 Burr. 337; 2 Bl. Com. 215; Farrand _v._ Marshall, 21 Barb. 421. It is not necessary in these cases that the noxious trade or business should endanger the health of the neighborhood. So also the use of premises in a manner which causes a noise so continuous and excessive as to produce serious annoyance, or vapors or noxious smells; Tipping _v._ St. Helen’s Smelting Co., 4 B. & S. (Q. B.) 608; Brill _v._ Flagler, 23 Wend. 354; Pickard _v._ Collins, 23 Barb. 444; Wood’s Law of Nuis., § 5; or the burning of a brick kiln, from which gases escape which injure the trees of persons in the neighborhood. Campbell _v._ Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568; S. C., 20 Am. Rep. 567. Of the latter class also are those where the owner blasts rocks with gunpowder, and the fragments are liable to be thrown on the premises and injure the adjoining dwelling-houses, or the owner or persons there being, or where persons travelling may be injured by such use. Hay _v._ Cohoes Co., 3 Barb. 42; S. C., 2 N. Y. 159; Tremain _v._ Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 163; Pixley _v._ Clark, 35 id. 523.

Most of the cases cited rest upon the maxim _sic utere tuo_, etc., and where the right to the undisturbed possession and enjoyment of property comes in conflict with the rights of others, that it is better, as a matter of public policy, that a single individual should surrender the use of his land for especial purposes injurious to his neighbor or to others, than that the latter should be deprived of the use of their property altogether, or be subjected to great danger, loss, and injury, which might result if the rights of the former were without any restriction or restraint.

The keeping of gunpowder or other materials in a place, or under circumstances, where it would be liable, in case of explosion, to injure the dwelling-houses or the persons of those residing in close proximity, we think, rests upon the same principle, and is governed by the same general rules. An individual has no more right to keep a magazine of powder upon his premises, which is dangerous, to the detriment of his neighbor, than he is authorized to engage in any other business which may occasion serious consequences.

The counsel for the defendant relies upon the case of People _v._ Sands, 1 Johns. 78; 3 Am. Dec. 296, to sustain the position that the defendant’s business was neither a public nor a private nuisance. That was an indictment for keeping a quantity of gunpowder near dwelling-houses and near a public street; and it was held (Spencer, J., dissenting), that the fact as charged did not amount to a nuisance, and that it should have been alleged to have been negligently and improvidently kept. It will be seen that the case was disposed of upon the form of the indictment, and while it may well be that an allegation of negligence is necessary where an indictment is for a public nuisance, it by no means follows that negligence is essential in a private action to recover damages for an alleged nuisance. In Myers _v._ Malcolm, 6 Hill, 292, it was held that the act of keeping a large quantity of gunpowder insufficiently secured near other buildings, thereby endangering the lives of persons residing in the vicinity, amounted to a public nuisance, and an action would lie for damages where an explosion occurred causing injury. Nelson, C. J., citing People _v._ Sands, _supra_, says: “Upon the principle that nothing will be intended or inferred to support an indictment, the Court said, for aught they could see, the house may have been one built and secured for the purpose of keeping powder in such a way as not to expose the neighborhood;” and he cites several authorities which uphold the doctrine that where gunpowder is kept in such a place as is dangerous to the inhabitants or passengers, it will be regarded as a nuisance. The case of People _v._ Sands is not therefore controlling upon the question of negligence.

Fillo _v._ Jones, 2 Abb. Ct. Ap. Dec. 121, is also relied upon, but does not sustain the doctrine contended for; and it is there held that an

## action for damages caused by the explosion of fire-works may be

maintained upon the theory that the defendant was guilty of a wrongful and unlawful act, or of default, in keeping them at the place they were kept, because they were liable to spontaneous combustion and explosion, and thus endangered the lives of persons in their vicinity, and that the injury was occasioned by such spontaneous combustion and explosion.

It is apparent that negligence alone in the keeping of gunpowder is not controlling, and that the danger arising from the locality where the fire-works or gunpowder are kept, is to be taken into consideration in maintaining an action of this character. We think that the request to charge was too broad, and properly refused. The charge however should have been in conformity with the rule herein laid down, and for the error of the judge in the charge, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

All concur.

_Judgment reversed._[301]

DILWORTH’S APPEAL SUPREME COURT, PENNSYLVANIA, OCTOBER 9, 1879. _Reported in 91 Pennsylvania State Reports, 247._

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny County.

Bill in equity by Robinson and forty-seven others against Dilworth, to restrain Dilworth from erecting a powder magazine upon his lot in Penn Township, Allegheny County. The case was referred to a master, who recommended that an injunction should be refused and the bill dismissed. The facts are set forth in the opinion of this court. The court below thought that the public interest would be subserved by refusing the injunction; but in deference to the authority of Wier’s Appeal, 24 P. F. Smith, 230, a majority of the court entered a _pro forma_ decree for an injunction. Appeal was taken to the Supreme Court.[302]

TRUNKEY, J. [After stating general principles and quoting from the statement of the facts in Wier’s Appeal.]

After a careful revision of the master’s report by the court below, the facts found in this case, and which are well sustained by proof, are as follows: This magazine has been located so as to endanger as few persons and as little property as possible, and yet be reasonably accessible as a point of supply and distribution; it is more remote from population than the magazines generally in use throughout the United States, and it is doubtful if a better location could be made in Allegheny County. It is situated about two miles from East Liberty, the nearest closely built-up district, and is separated therefrom by intervening hills and ravines. It is in a sparsely settled locality, for the vicinity of a city, and land near it has not been, nor is it likely to be for some years, in demand for building purposes. That portion of Lincoln Avenue which terminates at a point five hundred feet from the magazine is very little travelled, very few people travel it within considerable distance of its terminus, having no occasion to do so; it was the wildest of the many absurd enterprises undertaken in Pittsburgh to carry city improvements into wild rural regions, expecting population to rapidly follow. The other public road, passing within twenty-two feet of the magazine, has for some time been almost abandoned by the people in the vicinity, and is used by about three farmers. The magazine is so situated that the force of an explosion would be down the ravine and away from the road. The greater distance of this magazine from a borough, or closely built-up district, the absence of demand of land for building purposes, and the unlikelihood of such demand in the vicinity, the little travel on the public road which passes near it, and the ravine opening from the road, are the chief points wherein this case differs from Wier’s Appeal. The dwellings and families near the magazine number about the same in one as the other. None will deny that the law protects the small and cheap home as it does the large and costly mansion, and the rights of a tenant are as sacred as those of his landlord. But it is equally undeniable that if a tenant hold by lease at will, or by month, and his landlord grants that a lawful and necessary, yet offensive or dangerous factory or magazine may be erected, the tenant has not a right of action for its prevention. If such structure were placed near tenant houses occupied by miners, where the mines are likely to be worked for considerable time, it would be a material fact to be weighed with others—almost of like weight as if the houses were owned by the occupants. Here the mine is nearly exhausted, a fact to be considered in reference to the probable increase of population in the neighborhood.

It was urged that the location being only two hundred and fifty-five feet from the boundary line of Pittsburgh, and five hundred feet from the end of Lincoln Avenue, is dangerous to life and property in the city. The facts, as we have seen, are that that end of the avenue is very little travelled, and is remote from the population of the city; and, without question, “the region of country in which the magazine is located is wild and broken as to its general surface, it is traversed by numerous ravines and hills, and altogether possesses a romantic and secluded aspect.” It is the real character of the location, with its surroundings, which determines its fitness, and not a city line two miles from city life, nor the unused and useless part of a graded and paved street extended beyond the visible city.

Confessedly, the demand for and consumption of powder in Pittsburgh and vicinity are very great, and it is indispensable in carrying on important branches of industry, and it would be inimical to the business interests of the community to trammel the sale of it with unnecessary restrictions and burdens. Besides the magazine at the United States Arsenal there are no others in Allegheny County, except those of a single company, and the Dilworth. In view of the whole case the master, and one of the judges of the Common Pleas, thought the injunction should be refused. The majority of the court, in a considerate opinion, concluded that the public interest would be subserved by refusing the injunction, and that the complainants were not entitled to an injunction, but for the ruling in Wier’s Appeal, on the authority of which they felt constrained to grant it. A decree was entered, with direction that it would not be enforced until the defendant could be heard on appeal. We fully agree with the court below, except that we do not think the principles in Wier’s Appeal, applied to the facts in this case, require an injunction to be granted.

_Decree reversed. Bill dismissed._

SECTION IV VIOLATION OF STATUTORY DUTY

KNUPFLE _v._ KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. COURT OF APPEALS, NEW YORK, MARCH 15, 1881. _Reported in 84 New York Reports, 488._

Per Curiam.[303] One of the principal questions litigated upon the trial of this action related to the alleged negligence of the driver of the defendant’s team in leaving the horses untied in the street, which, it was claimed, was the cause of the death of the intestate. Among other evidence to establish such negligence, the plaintiff offered and introduced in evidence, against the objection of the defendant, an ordinance of the city of Brooklyn, prohibiting the leaving of any horse or horses attached to a vehicle standing in any street without a person in charge, or without being secured to a tying post. We think there is no question as to the admissibility of such testimony under the decisions of this court, and the exception taken to the ruling in this respect cannot be upheld.

A more serious question arises as to the effect to be given to the evidence referred to. At the close of the charge the plaintiff’s counsel requested the judge to charge the jury that a violation of an ordinance of the city is necessarily negligence; and the judge replied: “it is; I have so told the jury; it is negligence;” and the defendant’s counsel excepted. We think there was error in the charge thus made, and that the judge went too far in holding that a violation of the ordinance was negligence of itself.

The question presented has been the subject of consideration in this court, as will be seen by reference to the reported cases. In Brown _v._ B. & State Line R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 191, the court charged the jury that if the injury occurred while defendant’s train was running in violation of a city ordinance and at a rate of speed forbidden by it, and was occasioned by or would not have occurred except for such violation, the defendant was liable, and this direction was held to be error. This doctrine is, however, repudiated in Jetter _v._ N. Y. & H. R. R. Co., 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 458, as well as in subsequent cases. In the last case cited it was held that a party in doing a lawful act, where there is no present danger, or appearance of danger, has a right to assume that others will conform their conduct to the express requirements of the law and not bring injury upon him by its violation. It is also strongly intimated that a violator of such an ordinance is a wrong-doer and necessarily negligent, and a person injured thereby is entitled to a civil remedy. The distinct point now raised was not, however, fairly presented by the charge to which exception was taken, which was not otherwise erroneous. In Beisegel _v._ N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. [N. S.] 29, it was held that it was some evidence of negligence to show that an ordinance was violated, and the charge of the judge upon the trial to that effect was upheld. In McGrath _v._ N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 522, it was laid down that the violation or disregard of an ordinance, while not conclusive evidence of negligence, is some evidence for the consideration of the jury. In Massoth _v._ D. & H. Canal Co., 64 N. Y. 524, the cases are reviewed, and it was said to be an open question in this court whether the violation of a municipal ordinance was negligence _per se_; and it was held that the city ordinance being submitted to the jury with the other evidence as bearing upon the question, but not as conclusive, there was no error in the parts of the charge excepted to. The result of the decisions, therefore, is, that the violation of the ordinance is some evidence of negligence, but not necessarily negligence. The judge not only assented unqualifiedly to the request made, but he also said that it was negligence; and thus went further than to hold, within the cases cited, that it was evidence of negligence.

The counsel for the plaintiff urges that even if erroneous, the charge worked defendant no injury. This position is based upon the theory that as the question was submitted to the jury as one of fact, whether the team was left loose and unattended, and as the judge had charged that the ordinance adds very little to what would have been the rule without it, and that it was negligence to leave a horse untied or not in charge of some one, in a public street, whether there is an ordinance or not, they must have found that they were so left, and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. The difficulty about this position is, that the question, whether leaving the horses untied was negligence, was one of fact depending upon the circumstances attending the case, and while the jury may have found in favor of the defendant as to this, their verdict may have resulted from the charge made as to the effect of the ordinance. It cannot, therefore, be said that by the portion of the charge which has been considered the defendant was not prejudiced.

For the error in the charge, without considering the other questions raised, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.

All concur, except MILLER and DANFORTH, JJ., dissenting, and RAPALLO, J., absent.

_Judgment reversed._[304]

HOLMAN _v._ CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC R. CO. SUPREME COURT, MISSOURI, MAY TERM, 1876. _Reported in 62 Missouri Reports, 562._

HOUGH, J.[305] This was an action to recover damages for the killing of a cow, belonging to the plaintiff, by a train on defendant’s railroad in a street of the town of Cameron.

The evidence given at the trial is stated in the bill of exceptions in the following language: “The plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, introduced evidence tending to show, that the bell was not rung, nor the whistle sounded on the train mentioned in his statement, as it approached and ran over the cow in controversy; that the cow was killed on defendant’s railroad on a public travelled street of the town of Cameron, in Shoal township, by a train on said railroad, and that said cow was worth thirty-five dollars. The defendant introduced one Kiley, who testified that he was the conductor on said train, and that the bell was rung and the whistle sounded. This was all the evidence offered.”

It will not be necessary to notice the instructions given and refused. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has brought the case here by appeal.

The statute in relation to railroad corporations, which requires the bell on the locomotive to be rung, or the steam whistle to be sounded, before reaching and while crossing any travelled public road or street, provides a penalty for the neglect of such requirement, and further declares that the corporation shall be liable for all damages which shall be sustained by any person by reason of such neglect. Conceding that the servants of the defendant neglected to ring the bell or sound the whistle, the question is whether there is any evidence tending to show that the cow was killed by reason of such neglect.

In the case of Stoneman _v._ Atl. & Pac. R. R. Co., 58 Mo. 503, it was said, on the point in judgment, that “the court had no right to declare as a matter of law, that the jury had nothing to find but the killing of the animal at the crossing of a public highway, and the failure of the company to have the bell rung or the whistle sounded. There may have been no connection, whatever, between the negligent omission and the damage; and the very terms of the statute, under which the suit is brought, clearly indicate that the damage must be the result of the negligence.”

The foregoing extract clearly asserts, that there is no necessary connection between the failure to ring the bell or sound the whistle, and the killing; that both may concur in point of time, and the latter not be the result of the former. How, then, must the connection be shown? By evidence, undoubtedly. Who must produce such evidence? The party who asserts that such connection exists. The damage must be shown to be the result of the negligence; that is, the negligence must first be shown, and this fact must be supplemented by testimony tending to show that the negligence occasioned the damage. This testimony should consist of all the facts and circumstances attending the killing, so that the jury could fairly and rationally conclude whether it resulted from the failure to ring the bell or sound the whistle, or from other causes. In the case at bar no such testimony was offered; but two facts were shown to fix the defendants liability, the failure to give the required signal at the crossing, and the killing. No fact was shown tending to connect the two. If the plaintiff can recover on the evidence embodied in the bill of exceptions, it must be, because it is only necessary for the jury to find the killing of the animal on the highway, and the failure to ring the bell or sound the whistle, for there is no testimony from which they can find more. But this, we have seen, is not sufficient. Upon the case made, it was the duty of the court to declare as a matter of law that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

This conclusion has been reached after a careful consideration of the case of Owens _v._ Hann. & St. Jo. R. R., 58 Mo. 386; and Howenstein _v._ Pac. R. R., 55 Mo. 33.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. All the judges concur, except Judge Vories, who is absent.[306]

BRATTLEBORO _v._ WAIT SUPREME COURT, VERMONT, FEBRUARY TERM, 1872. _Reported in 44 Vermont Reports, 459._

## Action on the case, to recover damages sustained by reason of the

defendant’s neglect and refusal to comply with the requirements of § 39, ch. 83 of the General Statutes, and § 1 of No. 6 of the acts of the legislature of 1865. Demurrer to the declaration by the defendant.

The court, September term, 1870, BARRETT, J., presiding, sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the defendant. Exceptions by the plaintiff.

The opinion of the court was delivered by.—

ROSS, J. The question in this case is whether the defendant as cashier of the Windham County Bank for the years commencing April 1, 1864, and April 1, 1865, and of the First National Bank of Brattleboro for the years commencing April 1, 1866, and April 1, 1867, is liable for any loss that may have resulted to the town, by his neglect to return to the town clerk of the plaintiff, for the first two years named, the names of the stockholders in the Windham County Bank, agreeably to the requirements of § 39, ch. 83 of the General Statutes, and for the last two years the names of the stockholders of the First National Bank of Brattleboro, agreeably to the requirements of § 1, of No. 6 of the acts of 1865; or whether the penalties imposed by § 47 of ch. 83, and by § 5 of the act of 1865, are the only remedies given for the neglect of the defendant to perform the duties imposed by the two sections first above named.

These duties are created solely by the statutes named, and by them are superimposed upon the defendant in addition to those duties which were incumbent on him by reason of his acceptance of the office of cashier. The principle, that the law will furnish a remedy to a party injured by the neglect or non-performance of a duty imposed on an individual by statute, where the statute itself furnishes no remedy, is too familiar and well established to need the support of authorities. If the statute which imposes a new duty also provides a particular remedy, that remedy is usually the only remedy the injured party has. In Regina _v._ Wigg, 2 Salk. 460, the court says: “Where a new penalty is applied for a matter which at common law was an indictable offence, either remedy may be pursued; but where the statute makes the offence, that remedy must be taken which the statute gives.” Lord MANSFIELD, in Rex _v._ Robinson, 2 Bur. 799, stating the doctrine more fully, says: “The true rule of distinction seems to be, that where the offence intended to be guarded against was punishable before the making of such statute, prescribing a

## particular method of punishing it, there such particular remedy is

cumulative, and does not take away the former remedy; but where the statute only enacts ‘that the doing any act not punishable before, shall for the future be punishable in such and such a particular manner there,’ it is necessary that such particular method, by such act prescribed, must be specifically pursued, and not the common law method of an indictment.” The doctrine stated in these early leading cases is as applicable to civil as to criminal prosecutions. The question then is, was the penalty or forfeiture of $100 provided for by § 47, ch. 83 of the General Statutes, and of $500 provided for in § 5 of the act of 1865, intended for the remedies to the plaintiff for the non-performance by the defendant of the duties imposed by § 39, and by § 1. We think they were. The penalties under these statutes are given to the town, as the party injured or aggrieved by the failure of the defendant to perform the duties imposed, as has been held in Newman, Treasurer of Brattleboro, _v._ this defendant, 43 Vt. 587, in which the plaintiff through its treasurer sought to recover the penalty imposed by § 5 of the act of 1865, for the defendant’s failure to comply with § 1 of that

## act during the years 1866 and 1867. It is unnecessary to repeat what has

been said in that case. It would be inconsistent with the principle we have already stated, to hold that the plaintiff can recover the penalty as the party aggrieved, and also all damages it has sustained by the defendant’s failure to perform a duty wholly imposed upon him by the statute. Such holding would give the plaintiff a double remedy for the same failure by the defendant to perform a duty imposed by statute, and due to the plaintiff only by the force of the statute; the penalty prescribed, and an amercement in damages for all the plaintiff can show he has suffered from such failure. The penalty cannot be held to be a cumulative remedy; for before the passage of the act no duty was due from the defendant as cashier to the plaintiff, and, therefore, there could be no remedy, and nothing for the penalty to be cumulative to. Such holding would interpret one and the same act as giving a double remedy, which is contrary to all rules of interpretation, and only allowable when it is given in express terms by the statute.

_The judgment of the county court is affirmed._[307]

OSBORNE _v._ McMASTERS SUPREME COURT, MINNESOTA, JANUARY 30, 1889. _Reported in 40 Minnesota Reports, 103._

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the District Court for Ramsey County, where the action was tried before Kelly, J., and a jury, and a verdict rendered for plaintiff.

MITCHELL, J. Upon the record in this case it must be taken as the facts that defendant’s clerk in his drug-store, in the course of his employment as such, sold to plaintiff’s intestate a deadly poison without labelling it “Poison,” as required by statute; that she, in ignorance of its deadly qualities, partook of the poison, which caused her death. Except for the ability of counsel and the earnestness with which they have argued the case, we would not have supposed that there could be any serious doubt of defendant’s liability on this state of facts. It is immaterial for present purposes whether section 329 of the Penal Code or section 14, c. 147, Laws 1885, or both, are still in force, and constitute the law governing this case.[308] The requirements of both statutes are substantially the same, and the sole object of both is to protect the public against the dangerous qualities of poison. It is now well settled, certainly in this state, that where a statute or municipal ordinance imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, if he neglects to perform that duty he is liable to those for whose protection or benefit it was imposed for any injuries of the character which the statute or ordinance was designed to prevent, and which were proximately produced by such neglect. In support of this we need only cite our own decision in Bott _v._ Pratt, 33 Minn. 323 (23 N. W. Rep. 237).

Defendant contends that this is only true where a right of action for the alleged negligent act existed at common law; that no liability existed at common law for selling poison without labelling it, and therefore none exists under this statute, no right of civil action being given by it. Without stopping to consider the correctness of the assumption that selling poison without labelling it might not be

## actionable negligence at common law, it is sufficient to say that, in

our opinion, defendant’s contention proceeds upon an entire misapprehension of the nature and gist of a cause of action of this kind. The common law gives a right of action to every one sustaining injuries caused proximately by the negligence of another. The present is a common-law action, the gist of which is defendant’s negligence, resulting in the death of plaintiff’s intestate. Negligence is the breach of legal duty. It is immaterial whether the duty is one imposed by the rule of common law requiring the exercise of ordinary care not to injure another, or is imposed by a statute designed for the protection of others. In either case the failure to perform the duty constitutes negligence, and renders the party liable for injuries resulting from it. The only difference is that in the one case the measure of legal duty is to be determined upon common-law principles, while in the other the statute fixes it, so that the violation of the statute constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence, or, in other words, negligence _per se_. The action in the latter case is not a statutory one, nor does the statute give the right of action in any other sense except that it makes an act negligent which otherwise might not be such, or at least only evidence of negligence. All that the statute does is to establish a fixed standard by which the fact of negligence may be determined. The gist of the action is still negligence, or the non-performance of a legal duty to the person injured.

What has been already said suggests the answer to the further contention that if any civil liability exists it is only against the clerk who sold the poison, and who alone is criminally liable. Whether the act constituting the actionable negligence was such on common-law principles, or is made such by statute, the doctrine of agency applies, to wit, that the master is civilly liable for the negligence of his servant committed in the course of his employment, and resulting in injuries to third persons.

_Judgment affirmed._[309]

WILLY _v._ MULLEDY COURT OF APPEALS, NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 30, 1879. _Reported in 78 New York Reports, 310._

EARL, J.[310] This is an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s wife, alleged to have been caused by the fault of the defendant. Prior to the 1st day of November, 1877, the plaintiff hired of the defendant certain apartments in the rear of the third story of a tenement house in the city of Brooklyn, and with his wife and infant child moved into them on that day. On the fifth day in the same month, in the daytime, a fire took place, originating in the lower story of the house, and plaintiff’s wife and child were smothered to death.

It is claimed that the defendant was in fault because he had not constructed for the house a fire-escape, and because he had not placed in the house a ladder for access to the scuttle.

Section 36 of title 13 of