Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
At the time when the injury was occasioned to the haystack by the sparks of fire issuing from D's engine, it was not traveling at a greater speed than that prescribed by statutory Acts. The engine was constructed in conformity with the provisions of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 70, and of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 83. The injury was not occasioned by any negligence on the part of D's servants conducting or managing the same. It is clear that D conducted the activity with all reasonable care and without negligence. However, following Rylands v. Fletcher, the court stated 'that when a man brings or uses a thing of a dangerous character on his own land, he must keep it in at his own peril and is liable to the consequences, if it escapes and does injury to his neighbor,' and ruled for P. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co