DAMAGE TO WOODS, ETC., BY SPARKS PROM RAILWAY ENGINES. 289 



XXIII. Damage to Woods and Agricultural Crops by SjJarks 

 from Railway Engines. By Colonel F. Bailey. 



During recent years, the question of financial responsibility for 

 the numerous and disastrous fires in woods, agricultural crops, 

 stacks or buildings, which have been caused by sparks from 

 railway engines, has forced itself on the attention of landed 

 proprietors and tenant farmers with increasing urgency; and 

 the Council of the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Society have 

 considered it their duty to take the matter up. 



The following statement of the law on the subject is extracted 

 from "Deas on the Law of Railways," 2nd edition, revised by 

 Ferguson, 1897: — 



"Where the Legislature has sanctioned the use of a locomotive engine, 

 there is no liability for any injury caused by using it, so long as every 

 precaution is taken consistent with its use. But where there has been 

 negligence, the company will be liable in damages ; and in cases of fire, at 

 all events, the onus of proving that all reasonable precautions have been 

 adopted lies upon the company. The fact of the fire is itself prima facie 

 evidence of negligence, and evidence is admissible that other engines of the 

 company have emitted sparks reaching the premises in question. Where 

 trimmings of a hedge had been left by railway workmen, an engine passed, 

 and within a short time a large amount of property was destroyed by fire, 

 for which no other cause could be assigned ; it was held that there was 

 evidence of negligence, and that the damages were to be measured by the 

 price to be paid to an unwilling vendor. And where no statutory authority 

 for the use of engines has been given, the company will be liable, though all 

 precautions have been taken. 



"Provided the engine is of the best construction, and the proper safe- 

 guards are used for minimising the risk of fire damage, the railway company 

 is impliedly indemnified against the consequences of its use. The owners of 

 a flax store, near a railway line, which had been set on fire by a spark from 

 a passing engine, brought an action against the railway company, alleging 

 that the engine was improperly constructed, in respect that it had no ' spark 

 arrester.' The defenders maintained that in the more modern engines the 

 use of spark arresters had been given up, both because they impaired the 

 efficiency of the engine, and because other means as efficacious to prevent the 

 issue of sparks were adopted. The House of Lords held, affirming the First 

 Division, that no negligence had been proved against the company ; and the 

 observation was made by Lord M'Laren, that railway companies are not 

 under a legal disability to improve the efficiency of their engines, merely 

 because such improvement may tend in some degree to increase the risk of 

 setting fire to adjacent property." 



