300 FIKE CAUSED BY SPARKS FROM LOCOMOTIVE. 



But a railway company authorised by the Legislature to use locomotive 

 engines is not responsible for damage by fire occasioned by the sparks 

 fi'om an engine, provided they have taken every precaution wliicli 

 science can suggest to prevent injury from fire, and are not guilty of 

 negligence in the management of the engine ( Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail- 

 vay Company), 29 L. J. N". S. Ex. 247, see also Frcinantte v. London 

 and Xorth Western Raihcaij Company. 



It is a question of fact for a jury, and not of laiv for a judge, ivhether 

 the farmer in setting his stark of beans where it was jdared, or the railway 

 company who ignited it by tlie sparks which flew from their engine, had 

 been the most negligent {Aldridge v. Great Western Railway Company). 

 In Rex V. Pease it was held that no indictment for a nuisance lay 

 against a railway which ran five yards from a highway, for frightening 

 horses. 



According to Vaughan v. Menlove, an action lies against a party for 

 so negligently constructing a hay-rick on the extremity of his land, tJiat 

 in consequence of its spontaneous ignition his neighbour'' s house is burnt 

 doivn. At the trial it appeared that the rick in question had been 

 made by the defendant near the boundary of his own premises ; that 

 the hay was in such a state when put together as to give rise to dis- 

 cussions on the probability of fire ; that though there were conflicting 

 opinions on the subject, yet during a period of five weeks the defendant 

 was repeatedly warned of his peril ; that his stock was insured ; and that 

 upon one occasion being advised to take the rick down, to avoid all 

 danger, he said " he would chance it." He made an aperture or chimney 

 in the rick ; but in spite, or perhaps in consequence, of this precaution, 

 the rick at length burst into flames, which communicated to the defen- 

 dant's barn and stables, and thence to the plaintiff's cottages, wliich 

 were entirely destroyed. The pleas were Not guilty, and that there 

 was no negligence ; and the ruling of Patleson J., who told the jury 

 that the question for them to consider was, whether the fire had been 

 occasioned by gross negligence on the part of the defendant ; adding 

 tliat he was bound to proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent 

 man would have exercised under such circumstances — was upheld by 

 the Court of Common Pleas, and a new trial refused after a verdict for 

 the plaintiff. 



In Tuhervill v. Stamp, which applied very closely to the present case 

 in principle, it was decided that if an occupier burns weeds so near to 

 tlu boundary of his own land that datruige ensues to the property of his 

 neighbour, he is liable to an action for the amount of injury done, 

 unless the accident were occasioned by a sudden blast which he could 

 not foresee. 



