Scribd
Upload
10 views1 page

Analysis of the Decision of the House of Lords

Lord Chancellor Cairns agrees with the Exchequer Chamber's decision, stating the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent damage to the plaintiff's mines due to the artificial weight of water in a reservoir. He argues that while landowners can use their property as they wish, they are liable for damages if their actions harm neighboring properties. Cairns notes that had the water percolated naturally, the defendant would not have been liable, referencing cases Smith v Kenrick and Baird v Williamson to support his reasoning.

Uploaded by

obarabrian834
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views1 page

Analysis of the Decision of the House of Lords

Lord Chancellor Cairns agrees with the Exchequer Chamber's decision, stating the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent damage to the plaintiff's mines due to the artificial weight of water in a reservoir. He argues that while landowners can use their property as they wish, they are liable for damages if their actions harm neighboring properties. Cairns notes that had the water percolated naturally, the defendant would not have been liable, referencing cases Smith v Kenrick and Baird v Williamson to support his reasoning.

Uploaded by

obarabrian834
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns) concurs with the decision of the Exchequer Chamber.

His reasoning is that the defendant did not exercise reasonable precaution to prevent the damage
to the plaintiff’s mines in that the water did not percolate naturally into the land but instead it
was the weight of the water in the reservoir that caused the percolation. According to Cairns, it is
fair for the defendant to use his own piece of land for whatever lawful purpose but if such
ordinary use leads to damage of the neighbour’s property then it is reasonable that he should be
liable for the damages accrued. He mentions obiter dicta that if the water had percolated
naturally through natural instances such as rain then the defendant would not have been liable.
To illustrate this principle of reasoning the case of Smith V Kenrick and Baird V Williamson.

You might also like