Study manual

173 
[6] Smith V. The London and South Western Rly. co. COURT OF 
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. 1870. L.R 6 C.P. 14. 
The degree of care obligatory varies with the 
obviousness of the risk run. 
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas, discharging 
a rule to enter a verdict for the defendants or a nonsuit. 
This was an action for negligence. The declaration contained 
three counts, of which the second and only material one was a 
follows:- "The at the time of the committing by the defendants 
of the grievances in this count mentioned, the plaintiff 
possessed of a cottage and premises; and the defendants were 
possed of and had the care and management of a railway running 
near the said cottage and premises, with banks belonging 
thereto, and part of the said railway, and were possessed of 
locomotive engines containing burning substances, which were 
used by the defendants for conveying carriages along this 
railway. Yet, by the negligence and improper conduct of the 
defendants, and the want of due care on the part of the 
defendants in the keeping and management of their said railway 
engines and banks, quantities of cut grass and hedge trimmings 
were heaped up on the said railway and banks, and became and 
were ignited; and a fire was occasioned which spread over and 

---

174 
along a stubble-field, near the said railway, unto the said 
cottage and premises, and set fire to the same, and thereby the 
same and the plaintiff's furniture, &c., then being in and near 
the said cottage and premises, were burnt and destroyed, and the 
plaintiff lost the use and enjoyment of the same." 
The defendants pleaded not guilty, and issue was joined thereon. 
The case was tried before Keating, J. 
It was proved that the defendants' railway passed near the 
plaintiff's cottage, and that a small strip of grass extended 
for a few feet on each side of the line, and was bounded by a 
hedge which formed the boundary of the defendants' land; beyond 
the hedge was a stubble-field, bounded on one side by a road, 
beyond which was the plaintiff's cottage. About a fortnight 
before the fire the defendants' servants had trimmed the hedge 
and cut the grass, and left the trimmings and cut grass along 
the strip of grass. On the morning of the fire the company's 
servants had raked the trimmings and cut grass into small heaps. 
The summer had been exceedingly dry, and there had been many 
fires about in consequence. On the day in question, shortly 
after two trains had passed the spot, a fire was discovered upon 
the strip of grass land forming part of the defendants' 
property. The fire spread to the hedge and burnt through it, 
and caught the stubble-field; and, a strong wind blowing at the 
time, the flames ran across the field for 200 yards, crossed the 
road, and set fire to and burnt the plaintiff's cottage. There 

---

175 
was no evidence that the defendants' engines were improperly 
constructed or worked; there was no evidence except the fact 
that the engines had recently passed, to shew that the fire 
originated from them. There was no evidence whether the fire 
originated in one of the heaps of trimmings or on some other