Sonali Priyadarsani (BA0190048)

Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 (CP) 

This was a famous English tort law case that first introduced the concept of the reasonable
person in law.
CASE BACKGROUND

PARTIES TO THE CASE :

PETITIONER- Vaughan

v.

DEFENDANT- Menlove

SITTING JUDGES-

1. Tindal CJ
2. Park J
3. Vaughan J

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The defendant built a hay rick (or haystack) near the boundary of his land which bordered the
plaintiff's land. The defendant's hay rick had been built with a precautionary "chimney" to
prevent the hay from spontaneously igniting, but it ignited anyway. He had been warned
several times over a period of five weeks that the manner in which he built the hay rick was
dangerous, but he said "he would chance it." Consequently, the hay ignited and spread to the
plaintiff's land, burning down two of the plaintiff's cottages. Plaintiff brought suit for
negligence. The trial court instructed the jury that the issue was whether the fire was
occasioned by gross negligence, and explained that Defendant was bound to act as a
reasonable man would have under the circumstances. The jury found for Plaintiff, but
Defendant obtained a ruling on the ground that the jury should have been instructed to find
negligence only if it found Defendant had not acted to the best of his own judgment.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1
The standard for negligence is an objective one. One has behaved negligently if he has acted
in a way contrary to how a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar
circumstances.

ISSUE RAISED

Was the trial court correct in instructing the jury that whether or not Defendant had been
negligent was to be evaluated from an objective standpoint, not taking Defendant’s
intellectual limitations into account.

CRUX OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. DUTY- A duty is a simple legal obligation. In order to be sued for Negligence, the
Defendant must have owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff. In this case, the Defendant
built a hay stack in his land which adjoined the Plaintiff’s land. This implies that he
owed a duty of care towards the Plaintiff.
2. BREACH- A breach is a violation of a law or duty. Breach is simple to explain but
difficult to prove. If the defendant owed a duty and did not fulfill that duty, then he or
she is in breach. The Defendant must breach his duty in order to be liable for
negligence. Here, the Defendant continued the construction of the hay stack, despite
being warned several times that the manner in which it was being built was
dangerous. Consequently, the chimney which was supposed to prevent the hay from
igniting could not do so and it ignited anyway. Hence, there was a breach of duty on
the part of the Plaintiff.
3. CAUSE- The “causation” element generally relates to whether the defendant’s
actions hurt the plaintiff. Many times, it is not clear about who or what injured the
plaintiff. Sometimes it is clear that the defendant injured the plaintiff, but it is not all
that clear that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the defendant. The breach of
duty must have caused harm to the Plaintiff. In the matter in hand, the ignition caused
by the burning of the hay rick spread to the Plaintiff’s land and burned two cottages.
4. HARM- The harm suffered by the Petitioner is as a result of the Petitioner’s negligent
activity. The breach of duty must be the direct and proximate of your damages. In this
case, the cottages which were present in the Petitioner’s land burnt down due to the
acts of the Defendant. And such a consequence was direct, foreseeable and proximate
enough.

2
 5. DAMAGES- This element helps you prove what injury your claim is worth by
nailing down how badly you were injured, including pain, suffering, and emotional
distress. In the above mentioned case, the Plaintiff had to suffer special damages.
Special damages, also called economic damages, are the amounts of money you lost
and will continue to lose because of the at-fault party’s negligence. The Plaintiff have
to bear the costs of the reconstruction of the cottages, if he decides to do so. And it is
quite evident that the burning of the cottage was a direct consequence of the acts of
the Defendant.

DETAILED COMMENTARY ON ISSUES

PATTESON, J. before whom the cause was tried, 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, that he was bound to proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent
man would have exercised under such circumstances.

R.V. RICHARDS, in support of the rule :

The measure of prudence varies so with the faculties of men, that it is impossible to say what
is gross negligence with reference to the standard of what is called ordinary prudence.

TINDAL, C.J:

It is well known that hay will ferment and take fire if it be not carefully stacked.... It is
contended, however, that the learned Judge was wrong in leaving this to the jury as a case of
gross negligence, and that the question of negligence was so mixed up with reference to what
would be the conduct of a man of ordinary prudence that the jury might have thought the
latter the rule by which they were to decide; that such a rule would be too uncertain to act
upon; and that the question ought to have been whether the Defendant had acted honestly and
bona fide to the best of his own judgment. That, however, would leave so vague a line as to
afford no rule at all, the degree of judgment belonging to each individual being infinitely
various: and though it has been urged that the care which a prudent man would take, is not an
intelligible proposition as a rule of law, yet such has always been the rule adopted in cases of
bailment.

The Emergency Doctrine: One important feature of the standard of reasonable care is that it is
phrased in terms of what the reasonable person would do in the same or similar
circumstances. Thus, if the defendant is confronted with an emergency, we do not hold the

3
defendant to the standard of what might be expected of a person who has plenty of time to
think about the best course of action. Thus, a typical jury instruction on emergency reads like
this: "A person who is suddenly confronted by an emergency through no negligence of his or
her own and who is compelled to decide instantly how to avoid injury and who makes such a
choice as a reasonably careful person placed in such a position might make, is not negligent
even though it is not the wisest choice."

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCLUSION

A verdict having been found for the plaintiff, a rule nisi for a new trial was obtained, on the
ground that the jury should have been directed to consider, not, whether the Defendant had
been guilty of gross negligence with reference to the standard of ordinary prudence, a
standard too uncertain to afford any criterion; but whether he had acted bona fide to the best
of his judgment; if he had, he ought not to be responsible for the misfortune of not possessing
the highest order of intelligence. The action, under such circumstances, was of the first
impression.

Instead, therefore, of saying that the liability for negligence should be co-extensive with the
judgment of each individual, which would be as variable as the length of the foot of each
individual, we ought rather to adhere to the rule which requires in all cases a regard to caution
such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe. That was in substance the criterion
presented to the jury in this case, and therefore the present rule must be discharged.

LIST OF SIMILAR JUDGEMENTS

1. In Moule v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, (1960) 24 DLR (2d) 305

(SCC), the defendant power company removed branches of trees to be able to install
high voltage wires on telephone poles in a wooded neighbourhood. A 10-year-old
climbed up the tree and fell out. During his fall, he reached out and touched the live
wires. The court found that children climbing trees and coming into contact with
closely hung live wires was a foreseeable risk that power companies should address
by making the wires visible. However, because the power company placed the wires
above ground and removed the tree branches, the court found that the power company
took adequate precaution. In doing so, the court held: “The defendant should not be
held guilty of negligence for not having foreseen the possibility of the occurrence of
such an unlikely event as happened in this case and provided against it by the removal
of the maple tree.”

4
2. In Wilde v. The Cambie Malone Corporation, 2008 BCSC 704, a woman was hit on
the head by a restaurant’s patio umbrella that was blown toward her by the wind. The
court found the restaurant negligent because it was foreseeable, given its location
right by the water, that a powerful gust of wind could lift away the umbrella, even
though this had never happened before. Moreover, the court considered that it would
cost very little to set up an inspection checklist and repair system for the employees
putting up the umbrellas. Therefore, the restaurant did not sufficiently safeguard the
plaintiff from harm.  This decision highlights the need to balance the likelihood of
damage with the consideration of cost measures needed to reduce or neutralize the
risk.
3. In Priestman v. Colangelo, [1959] SCR 615, a police officer who was involved in a
high speed chase was sued for shooting the suspect. When shot, the suspect was
rendered unconscious and his car hopped onto a curb and killed two pedestrians. The
court determined that the police officer was not liable for the death of the pedestrians,
because he was empowered to take certain risks in his line of duty.