No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dangerous things and the Non-Natural User of Land
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
It is perhaps true that one of the most important moral qualities of a man, especially an undergraduate, is a knowledge of where to ‘draw the line’; it is certainly true that one of the most essential parts of a lawyer's equipment is the capacity for drawing distinctions correctly. The whole framework of the law is based upon distinctions, and the drawing of false distinctions is as disastrous as is the failure to draw those that are based upon sound reasoning. It is the object of this article to consider, very tentatively, two distinctions which have been introduced into the common law relating to injury done to others by the property of the defendant: in the first place, the distinction between those things which are dangerous per se and those things which are dangerous sub modo, and in the second place, the distinction between the natural and the non-natural user of land. I shall then endeavour to consider the relation of these two problems to each other. But there will be no attempt to state the nature or extent of the liability that arises; for example, I shall not consider the true nature of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher or the extent of the duty owed by him who deals with dangerous chattels, though some light may incidentally be thrown upon such matters.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1929
References
page 377 note 1 (1912) 106 L. T. 533, 535, 536. An unusual somnolence seems to have come over the other law reporters about this period: this volume of the Law Times contains several interesting cases which are not reported elsewhere.
page 377 note 2 It would be superfluous to give more than a few examples: Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 M. & W. 519 (Parke B.); Collis v. Selden (1868) L. B. 3 C. P. 495 (Willes J.); Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 (Bowen L.J.); Earl v. Lubbock [1905] 1 K. B. 253 (Stirling L.J.); Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins [1909] A. C. 640 (Lord Dunedin); Latham v. Johnson [1913] 1 K. B. 398 (Farwell and Hamilton L.JJ.); Quebec Ry. Co. v. Vandry [1920] A. C. 662 (Lord Sumner); Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332 (Rowiatt and Wright JJ.); Anglo-Celtic Shipping Co. v. Elliott (1926) 42 T. L. R. 297 (Roche J.).
page 377 note 3 Noble v. Harrison, ubi supra (Wright J.).
page 377 note 4 Gautret v. Egerton (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 371 (Willes J.).
page 377 note 5 Piggot v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1846) 3 C. B. 229 (Tindal C.J.).
page 377 note 6 Latham v. Johnson, ubi supra (Hamilton L.J. at p. 414); Jones v. Festiniog Ry. Co. (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 733 (Lush J.); Weld-Blundell v. Stephens [1920] A. C. p. 985 (Lord Sumner).
page 377 note 7 Parry v. Smith (1879) 4 C. P. D. 325, 327.
page 377 note 8 Le Lievre v. Gould, ubi supra, at p. 502.
page 377 note 9 White v. Steadman [1913] 3 K. B. 340, 347 (Lush J.).
page 378 note 10 Langridge v. Levy, ubi supra. With this contrast Lord Dunedin in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, ubi supra (at p. 646): ‘A loaded gun will not go off unless some one pulls the trigger, a poison is innocuous unless some one takes it, gas will not explode unless it is mixed with air and then a light is set to it.’
page 378 note 11 E.g. Erle C.J. in Potter v. Faulkner (1861) 1 B. & S. 800; Bramwell, L.J. in Powell v. Fall (1880)Google Scholar 5 Q B. D. 597; Collins, M.K. in Earl v. Lubbock [1905] 1Google Scholar K. B. 253.
page 378 note 12 Mellor J. in Powell v Fall, ubi supra.
page 378 note 13 Hurdman v. N. E. Ry. Co. (1878) 3 C. P. D. 168 (Cotton L.J.); Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Mulholland [1898] A. C. 216 (Lord Shand); Ruoff v. Long & Co. [1916] 1 K. B. 148 (Avory J.).
page 378 note 14 Hurdman v. N. E. Ry. Co., ubi supra.
page 378 note 15 (1866) L. R. 1 Ex. 265, p. 279. Cp. Ellenborough, Lord in a very early case, Dixon v. Bell (1816)Google Scholar Holt, 233, ‘an instrument of mischief,’ and on the motion for a new trial, 5 M. & S. 198, ‘capable of doing mischief.’
page 378 note 16 Chichester Corporation v. Foster [1906] 1 K. B. 167.
page 378 note 17 (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330.
page 378 note 18 Jones v. Festiniog Ry. Co. (1868) ubi supra.
page 378 note 19 E.g. by Bowen, L.J. in Filburn v. People's Palace and Aquarium Co. (1890)Google Scholar 25 Q. B. D. 258.
page 378 note 20 Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co. [1914] 3 K. B. 772 (Lord Sumner); Mansel v. Webb (1918) 88 L. J. K. B. 323 (Duke L.J.); Manton v. Brocklebank [1923] 2 K. B. 212 (Atkin L.J.).
page 378 note 21 Ponting v. Noakes [1894] 2 Q. B. 281 (Charles J.); Greenwell v. Low Becchburn Colliery Co. [1897] 2 Q. B. 165 (Bruce J.); West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14 (Lord Alverstone C.J.); Baker v. Snell [1908] 2 K. B. 825 (Kennedy L.J.).
page 378 note 22 Farrant v. Barnes (1862) 11 C. B. (N.S.) 553 (Willes J.); Wilson v. New berry (1871) L. B. 7 Q. B. 31 (Mellor J.). Cp. ‘extremely dangerous and unruly character’: Piggot v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1846) 3 C. B. 229 (Tindal C.J.). With these statements of the law should be contrasted Firth v. Bowling Iron Co (1878) 3 C. P. D. 254 and the judgment of Bramwell B. in Nichols v. Marsland (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 255.
page 379 note 23 Stirling, L.J. in Foster v. Warblington U. C. [1906] 1Google Scholar K. B. 648; Parker, J. in Jones v. Llanrwst U. C. [1911] 1Google Scholar Ch. 393; Astbnry, J. in Hoare & Co. V. McAlpine [1923] 1Google Scholar Ch. 167, 175 (referring to argument for plaintiffs): ‘an action on the oase in the nature of trespass … where a man releases some force brought by him on to his own property, which gets beyond his control and injures his neighbour.’ Cp. the language of Blackburn, J. in Hodgkinson v. Ennor (1863)Google Scholar 4 B. & S. 229.
page 379 note 24 (1871) L. R. 6 Ex. 217, 221. Cp. the same judge in Nichols v. Marsland, ubi supra.
page 379 note 25 (1865) 3 H. & C. 774, 789.
page 379 note 26 Parry v. Smith, ubi supra; Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, ubi supra.
page 379 note 27 Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society [1903] 1 K. B. 155.
page 379 note 28 Thomas v. Winchester (1852) 6 N. Y. 397, Bigelow L.C. 602; cp. per Lord Dunedin in Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, ubi supra.
page 379 note 29 George v. Skivington (1869) L. R. 5 Ex. 1, as explained by Brett, M.R. in Cunnington v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1883)Google Scholar 49 L. T. 392, Field, and Cave, JJ. in Heaven v. Pender (1882)Google Scholar 9 Q. B. D. 302; Chitty, J. in Cann v. Wilson (1888) 39Google Scholar Ch. D. 39; Romer, J. in Scholes v. Brook [1891]Google Scholar W. N. 16, and (semble) Atkinson, Lord in Cavalier v. Pope [1906]Google Scholar A. C. 428. Lush, J. also thought that the decision could be justified if it had proceeded on that ground: Blacker v. Lake and Elliot (1912) 106Google Scholar L. T. 533; White v. Steadman [1913] 3 K. B. 340.
page 379 note 30 Dixon v. Bell (1816) 1 Stark. 287; Holt 233; on appeal 5 M. & S. 198. Sullivan v. Creed [1904] 2 Ir. R. 317. Cp. per Lord Dunedin in Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, ubi supra.
page 380 note 31 Anglo-Celtic Shipping Co. v. Elliott (1926) 42 T. L. R. 297.
page 380 note 32 White v. Steadman [1913] 3 K. B. 340. Cp. Le Lievre v. Gould, ubi supra, per Bowen L.J.
page 380 note 33 Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter Ry. Co. (1858) 8 E. & B. 1035.
page 380 note 34 MacCarthy v. Young (1861) 6 H. & N. 329.
page 380 note 35 Caledonian Ry Co. v. Mulholland, ubi supra; Redhead v. M. Ry. Co. (1869) 9 B. & S. 519.
page 380 note 36 Earl v. Lubbock, ubi supra.
page 380 note 37 Bates v. Batey [1913] 3 K. B. 351.
page 380 note 38 Longmeid v. Holliday (1851) 6 Ex. 761.
page 380 note 38a Bates v. Batey [1913] 3 K. B. 351, 353.
page 380 note 39 Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 M. & w. 519.
page 380 note 40 Sullivan v. Creed [1904] 2 Ir. R. 317, 340. Cp. n. (10) supra.
page 380 note 41 Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 Q. B. 491; Australian Steam Shipping Co. v. Devitt (1917) 33 T. L. R. 178; Humphery v. Bowers (1929) 45 T. L. R. 297.
page 380 note 42 Le Lievre v. Gould, ubi supra. This rule would seem to be an anomaly which can only be explained by the history of our law. It is an unforeseen development of the common law principle that damages could never be obtained for an innocent misrepresentation except in contract. See also Bigelow, Leading Cases on the Law of Torts, pp. 619—626.
page 381 note 43 E.g. Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 Ex. 519; Winlerbottom v. Wright (1842) 10 M. & W. 109; Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503; Earl v. Lubbock [1905] 1 K. B. 253; Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Mulholland [1898] A. C. 216. See Bohlen's Studies in the Law of Torts, pp. 76—80, 86—7, and for the difficulties of the law the judgment of Kennedy, J. in Earl v. Lubbock (1904)Google Scholar 74 L. J. K. B. 121.
page 381 note 44 [1920] A. C. 956, 985.
page 381 note 45 Crowder v. Tinkler (1816) 19 Ves. G17.
page 381 note 46 R. v. Lister (1857) 7 Cox, 342.
page 381 note 47 Hepburn v. Lordan (1865) 2 H. & M. 345.
page 381 note 48 Per Lord Campbell in R. v. Lister, ubi supra.
page 381 note 49 See 2 Russell on Crimes, 8th ed., 1715. See R. v. Bennett (1858) 8 Cox, 74; Webley v. Woolley (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 61.
page 381 note 50 Alston v. Herring (1856) 11 Ex. 822.
page 381 note 51 Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 471.
page 381 note 52 Farrant v. Barnes (1862) 11 C. B. (N.S.) 553.
page 381 note 53 But not oxygen water which gives off only 20 volumes of oxygen instead of 100: Great Northern Ry. Co. v. L. E. P. Transport and Depository, Ltd. [1922] 2 K. B. 742.
page 381 note 54 Hutchinson v. Guion (1858) 5 C. B. (N.S.) 149.
page 381 note 55 Williams v. East India Co. (1802) 3 East, 192.
page 381 note 56 Mitchell, Cotts & Co. v. Steel Bros. [1916] 2 K. B. 610 (Atkin J.).
page 381 note 57 Hearne v. Carton (1859) 2 E. & E. 66.
page 382 note 58 Farrant v. Barnes, ubi supra.
page 382 note 59 Transoceanica Societa Italiana v. Shipton [1923] 1 K. B. 31, distinguishing Mitchell, Cotts & Co. v. Steel Bros., ubi supra.
page 382 note 60 Glasgow Corpn. v. Taylor [1922] 1 A. C. 44.
page 382 note 61 Ponting v. Noakes [1894] 2 Q. B. 281. Per Collins J. at p. 291.
page 382 note 62 Cooke v. Midland G. W. Ry. of Ireland [1909] A. C. 229.
page 382 note 63 Addie and Sons v. Dumbreck (1929) 45 T. L. E. 267, at pp. 268, 270, 272.
page 382 note 64 Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503.
page 382 note 65 Williams v. Eady (1893) 10 T. L. R. 41.
page 382 note 66 Cp. per Hamilton, L.J. in Latham v. R. Johnson & Nephew [1913]Google Scholar K. B. 398.
page 382 note 67 Collis v. Selden (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 495.
page 382 note 68 Latham v. R. Johnson & Nephew, ubi supra.
page 382 note 69 (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330.
page 382 note 70 E.g. Carstairs v. Taylor (1871) L. E. 6 Ex. 217; Crompton v. Lea (1874) 19 Eq. 115; Dixon v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 418; Whitmores (Edenbridge), Ltd. v. Stanford [1909] 1 Ch. 427, where Eve, J. spoke of ‘Water, or any other dangerous element’; Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co. [1914] 3Google Scholar K. B. 772.
page 382 note 71 Blake v. Land and House Property Corporation (1887) 3 T. L. E. 667.
page 382 note 72 De Silva v. Korossa (Ceylon) Rubber Co. (1919) 88 L. J. P. C. 54; Job Edwards v. Birmingham Canal Navigations [1924] 1 K. B. 341, per Scrutton L.J.
page 382 note 73 Batcheller v. Tunbridge Wells Gas Co. (1901) 84 L. T. 765.
page 382 note 74 Jefferson v. Derbyshire Farmers [1921] 2 K. B. 281, 290 (Atkin L.J.).
page 382 note 75 Musgrove v. Pandelis [1919] 2 K. B. 43.
page 382 note 76 Piggot v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1846) 3 C. B. 229; Jones v. Festiniog Ry. Co. (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 733. Contrast Vaughan v. Taff Vale By Co. (1860) 5 H. & N. 679.
page 383 note 77 Powell v. Fall (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 597; Mansel v. Webb (1918) 88 L. J. K. B. 323.
page 383 note 78 Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (1918) 34 T. L. B. 500.
page 383 note 79 D.N.P. (di-nitro-phenol): Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. [1920] 2Google Scholar K. B. 487; [1921] 2 A. C. 465.
page 383 note 80 National Telephone Co. v. Baker [1893] 2 Ch. 186; Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. v. Cape Town Tramways [1902] A. C. 381; cp. Quebec Ry. Co. v. Vandry [1920] A. C. 662.
page 383 note 81 Smith v. Great Western Ry. Co. (1926) 135 L. T. 112.
page 383 note 82 West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14.
page 383 note 83 Humphries v. Cousins (1877) 2 C. P. D. 239; Foster v. Warblington U. C. [1906] 1 K. B. 648; Jones v. Llanrwst U. C, ubi supra.
page 383 note 84 Att.-Gen. v. Cory Bros. [1921] 1 A. C. 521. But apparently not rocks in imminent danger of falling: Pontardawe R. D. C. v. Moore-Gwyn (1929) 45 T. L. R. 276.
page 383 note 85 Tarry v. Ashton (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 314.
page 383 note 86 Firth v. Bowling Iron Co. (1878) 3 C. P. D. 254.
page 383 note 87 Hoare & Co. v. McAlpine [1923] 1 Ch. 167.
page 383 note 88 Wilson v. Newberry (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 31; Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board (1878) 4 Ex. D. 5.
page 383 note 89 Smith v. Giddy [1904] 2 K. B. 448. Cp. Cheater v. Cater [1918] 1 K. B. 247, per Bankes L.J.
page 383 note 90 Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332.
page 383 note 91 Smith v. L. & S. W. Ry. Co. (1870) L. E. 6 C. P. 14, 22.
page 384 note 92 [1891] 1 Q. B. 86. But this case has been criticized, e.g. by Beven (Negligence, 4th ed. i. 710–2), and Charlesworth (Liability for Dangerous Things, p. 178).
page 384 note 93 Cp. O'Connor L.J. in 38 L. Q. R. p. 22.
page 384 note 94 Hutchins v. Maunder (1920) 37 T. L. R. 72.
page 384 note 95 Musgroce v. Pandelis, ubi supra.
page 384 note 96 Phillips v. Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co. [1923] 1 K. B. 539; [1923] K. B. 832.
page 384 note 97 Wing v. L G. O. C. [1909] 2 K. B. 652.
page 384 note 98 Parker v. L. G. O. C. (1909) 25 T. L. H. 429; 26 T. L. R. 18.
page 384 note 99 Ruoff v. Long & Co. [1916] 1 K. B. 148.
page 384 note 100 Chichester Corporation v. Foster [1906] 1 K. B. 167.
page 384 note 1 Gas Light and Coke Co. v. St. Mary Abbots' (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 1, approved in Chichester Corporation v. Foster, ubi supra.
page 384 note 2 Darley Minn Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886) 11 A. C. 127 (Lord Halsbury); Filburn v. The People's Palace and Aquarium Co. (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 258 (Bowen L.J.); Batcheller v. Tunbridge Wells Gas Co. (1901) 84 L. T. 765 (Farwell J.); West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14 (Lord AlverRtone C.J.); Baker v. Snell [1908 2 K. B. 825 (Kennedy L.J.); Lowery v. Walker [1909] 2 K. B. 433 (Pickford J.); White v. Steadman [1913] 3 K. B. 340 (Lush J.); Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (1918) 34 T. L. R. 500 (Swinfen Eady M.R.); Manton v. Brocklebank [1923] 2 K. B. 212 (Lord Sterndale, Warringtqn and Atkin L.J.I.); Hines v. Tousley (1926) 95 L. J. K B. 773 (Bankes L.J.); Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332 (Wright J.). Cp. Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. Co. (1860) 5 H. & N. 679 (Cockburn C.J., Crompton J.). Contra, Nichols v. Marsland (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 255 (Bramwell B.). It is unnecessary here to consider when liability has been imposed or redress denied on account of the nature of the different animals. See Salmond's Torts (7th ed.), $ 127.
page 385 note 3 Holgate v. Bleazard [1917] 1 K. B. 443.
page 385 note 4 Snow v Whitehead (1884) 27 Ch. D. 588, 591.
page 385 note 5 Manton v. Brocklebank [1923] 2 K. B. 212.
page 385 note 6 Heath's Garage v. Hodges [1916] 2 K. B. 370.
page 385 note 7 Hines v. Tousley (1926) 95 L. J. K. B. 773.
page 385 note 8 Evans v. Liverpool Corporation [1906] 1 K. B. 160. Yet knowingly to expose in a public highway a person infected with a contagious disease injuriously to others is an indictable nuisance: R. v. Vantandillo (1815) 4 M. & S. 73.
page 385 note 9 Ilford U. C. v. Beal [1925] 1 K. B. 671; St. Anne's Well Brewery Co. v. Roberts (1928) 140 L. T. 1. 1
page 385 note 10 Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2 K. B. 633.
page 385 note 11 West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14, per Farwell L.J.
page 385 note 12 Younger, L.J. in Belvedere Fish Guano Co. v. Rainham Chemical Works [1920] 2Google Scholar K. B. 487, 515.
page 385 note 13 Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. [1921] 2 A. C. 465.
page 386 note 14 P. 7.
page 386 note 15 Latham v. Johnson [1913] 1 K. B. 398.
page 386 note 16 R. v. Lister (1857) 7 Cox, 342. Cp. Crowder v. Tinkler (1816) 19 Ves. 617; Hepburn v. Lordan (1865) 2 H. & M. 345; Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. [1921] 2 A. C. 465. And under statute, see Bliss v. Lilley (1862) 3 B. & S. 128.
page 386 note 17 [1904] 2 Ir. R. 317, 325—326.
page 386 note 18 Williams v. Eady (1893) 10 T. L. R. 41.
page 387 note 19 Chichester Corporation v. Foster [1906] 1 K. B. 167, 177—178.
page 387 note 20 Cp. Musgrove v. pandelis, ubi supra.
page 387 note 21 Darling J.'s predilection for citations from English poetry, which once earned him a judicial rebuke ([1925] 2 K. B. p. 636), seems to have here led him into an unnecessary qualification. Even ‘a little learning’ is not at all times and in all circumstances as dangerous as complete ignorance.
page 387 note 22 Supra, p. 385.
page 387 note 23 (1912) 106 L. T. 533.
page 387 note 24 Even if the damage results indirectly: Dixon v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 418; Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co. [1914] 3 K. B. 772 (Bray J.); Att.-Gen. v. Cory Bros. [1921] 1 A. C. 521 (Lord Finlay). But the damage must not be too remote: Cattle v. Stockton Ironworks Co. (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. 453, and presumably must be the direct consequence of the defendant's act within the rule in Re Polemis [1921] 3 K. B. 560.
page 388 note 25 There are many judgments in which no distinction has been taken between things dangerous per se and things dangerous sub modo: e.g. Collis v. Selden (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 495 (Willes J.); George v. Skivington (1869) L. R. 5 Ex. 1; Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503 (Cotton and Bowen L.JJ.); Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 (Bowen L.J.); Latham v. Johnson [1913] 1 K. B. 398, 419: ‘the chattel muet be something highly dangerous in itself, inherently or from the state in which its owner suffers it to be’ (Hamilton L.J.).
page 388 note 26 This could be illustrated from a large number of cases, of which the following, all already cited, are examples in different connections: Hearne v. Gurton, Heaven v. Pender, Ilford U. C. v. Beal, Farrant v. Barnes, MacCarthy v. young, Manton v. Brocklebank, Noble v. Harrison, Redhead v. M. Ry. Co., Williams v. E. India Co. Humphries v. Cousins (1877) 2 C. P. D. 239, which was approved in Firth v. Bowling Iron Co. (1878) 3 C. P. D. 254, is no exception to the general rule, if correctly explained by Branson, J. in Ilford U. C. v. Beal [1925] 1Google Scholar K. B. 671. The judgment of Blackburn, J. in Tarry v. Ashton (1876)Google Scholar 1 Q. B. D. 314 has been preferred to that of Lush and Quain JJ. by Farwell, L.J. in Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2Google Scholar K. B. 633 and Wright, J. in Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2Google Scholar K. B. 332. The judgment of Crompton, J. in Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6Google Scholar E. & B. 471 has been preferred to that of Lord Campbell C.J. and Wightman J. by Willes, J. in Hutchinson v. Guion (1858)Google Scholar 5 C. B. (N.S.) 149, by Vaughan, Williams L.J. in Bamfield v. Goole and Sheffield Transport Co., Ltd. [1910] 2Google Scholar K. B. 94, Atkin, J. in Mitchell, Colts & Co. v. Steel Bros. [1916] 2Google Scholar K. B. 610, and Mr. Carver, Carriage by Sea, art. 278. On the other hand, Fletcher Moulton and Farwell L.JJ. in Bamfield's Case, supra, McCardie, J. (semble) in Transoceanica Societa Italiana v., Shipton [1923] 1Google Scholar K. B. 31, Scrutton, L.J. in G. N. Ry. Co. v. L. E. P. Transport and Depository, Ltd. [1922] 2Google Scholar K. B. 742, and in his book on Charterparties, the writers in Halsbury's Laws of England (iv, 101; xxi, 371; xxvi, 101), and Mr. Leslie in Law of Transport by Railway, p. 31, accept the view of the majority of the Court in that case. If that be correct, we must treat the case of delivery of goods to a common carrier as en exception to the general rule. It is based on an implied warranty in contract.
page 388 note 27 See pp. 386—387.
page 388 note 28 Mansel v. Webb (1918) 88 L. J. K. B. 323. Bankes, L.J. in Musgrove v. Pandelis [1919] 2Google Scholar K. B. 43, 47, whilst imposing liability for a fire started by a motor-car, takes a different view: ‘The expectation of danger is not the basis of the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher. A thing may be dangerous although the danger is unexpected.’
page 388 note 29 Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 471 (Crompton J.); Tarry v. Ashton (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 314 (Blackburn J.); Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society [1903] 1 K. B. 155 (Mathew L.J.); White v. Steadman [1918] 3 K. B. 340 (Lush J.). It is submitted that, properly considered, Parke, B.'s judgment in Longmeid v. Holliday (1851) 6Google Scholar Ex. 761 is to the same effect. The words ‘although discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care’ must be read in connexion with the later words ‘the defendant not knowing or having any reason to believe it was not perfectly safe.’
page 389 note 30 [1913] 3 K. B. 351.
page 389 note 31 (1912) 106 L. T. 533, 537.
page 389 note 31a But Mathew, L.J. in Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society [1903] 1Google Scholar K. B. 155 seems to have treated ‘the means of knowing’ as sufficient to found liability.
page 389 note 32 [1913] 3 K. B. 340.
page 390 note 33 (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330, 338—339.
page 390 note 34 (1865) 3 H. & C. 774.
page 390 note 35 (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330, 336.
page 390 note 36 (I860) 3 B. & S. 62, 83.
page 390 note 37 Torts (7th ed.), p. 347. Cp. Jeremiah Smith in Harvard Essays on the Law of Torts, p. 216.
page 391 note 38 Liability for Dangerous Things, p. 148.
page 391 note 39 (1849) 7 C. B. 515.
page 391 note 40 (1863) 15 C. B. (N.S.) 376.
page 391 note 41 Cp. Clerk and Lindsell, Torts (8th ed.), p. 386.
page 391 note 42 Att.-Gen. v. Tomline (1879) 12 Ch. D. 214 (Fry J.); (1880) 14 Ch. D. 53 (Cotton L.J.).
page 391 note 43 [1893] 2 Ch. 186. Cp. Sutton v. Card [1886] W. N. 120, ‘ordinary way of using a man's own property’.
page 391 note 44 West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14.
page 391 note 45 Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332. But note that Bramwell B. in Bamford v. Turnley, in the passage cited, supra, distinguished ‘ordinary’ from ‘natural’.
page 391 note 46 [1913] A. C. 263, 280.
page 392 note 47 Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. [1921] 2 A. C. 465, 471.
page 392 note 48 Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2 K. B. 633, 645.
page 392 note 49 Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332, 342; cp. Fletcher, Moulton L.J. in Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2Google Scholar K. B. 633.
page 392 note 50 (1875) L. B. 10 Ex. 255, 259. Cp. ‘ordinary and reasonable’ Wright, J. in Gill v. Edouin (1894) 15Google Scholar B. 109, and in Blake v. Woolf [1898]2 Q. B. 426.
page 392 note 51 [1913] A. C. 263, 281. Cp. Farwell, L.J. in Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2Google Scholar K. B. 633.
page 392 note 52 Aldred's Case (1610) 9 Co. 57; Bamford v. Turnley (1860) 3 B. & S. 62, explaining Jones v. Powell (1628) Palm. 536 Hutton 135; St. Helens Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) 11 H. L. C. 642; Broder v. Saillard (1876) 2 Ch. D. 692.
page 393 note 53 (1860) 3 B. & S. 62, 83—84.
page 393 note 54 (1628) Palm. 536, 538.
page 393 note 55 Cp. Dunn v. Birmingham Canal Co. (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 244:8 Q. B. 42: Crompton v lea (1874) 19 Eq. 115.
page 393 note 56 (1876) 2 App. Cas. 95, 99.
:page 393 note 57 (1878) 3 C. P. D. 168, 174.
page 394 note 58 A similar distinction was recognized in West Cumberland Iron and Steel Co v. Kenyon (1879) 11 Ch. D. 782; Att.-Oen. v. Tomline (1879) 12 Ch. D. 214; (1880) 14 Ch. D. 58.
page 394 note 59 (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 131, 141.
page 394 note 60 (1901) 84 L. T. 765, 766.
page 394 note 61 [1902] A. C. 381.
page 394 note 62 [1908] 2 K. B. 14.
page 394 note 63 [1911] 2 K. B. 633.
page 394 note 64 [1913] 1 K. B. 398.
page 394 note 65 [1913] A. C. 263.
page 394 note 66 [1919] 1 K. B. 394.
page 394 note 67 [1921] 2 A. C. 465.
page 394 note 68 [1925] 1 K. B. 671.
page 394 note 69 (1928) 140 L. T. 1.
page 395 note 70 [1926] 2 K. B. 332.
page 395 note 71 [1911] 2 K. B. 633, 642.
page 395 note 72 [1913]1 K. B. 398, 406.
page 395 note 73 (1928) 140 L. T. p. 8.
page 395 note 74 But see also Wright, J. in Noile v. Harrison [1926] 2Google Scholar K. B. 332.
page 395 note 75 Pontardawe R. D. C. v. Moore-Gwyn (1929) 45 T. L. E. 276, 277.
page 396 note 76 (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 656.
page 396 note 77 [1898] 2 Q. B. 426.
page 396 note 78 Supra, p. 393.
page 396 note 79 Studies in the Law of Torts, pp. 350–1.
page 396 note 80 Pp. 368—398.
page 396 note 81 Jones v. Powell (1628) Palm. 536.
page 396 note 82 Supra, pp. 391—392.
page 397 note 83 P.M.-G. v. Latter (1928) 166 L. T. Journal, 152.
page 397 note 84 See Holdsworth, History of English Law, viii, 470–1.