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.