Synopsis of Rule of Law.

 A person who for his own purposes brings on his

lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes,
must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable
for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
Issue. Was the use of Defendant’s land unreasonable and thus was he to be
held liable for damages incurred by Plaintiff?

Held. The lower court judgment was affirmed, stating in essence that the Defendant’s use of the land
was unreasonable, engaged in without proper caution, and resulted in harm to the Plaintiff.

Concurrence. The concurrence states more clearly the rule to be applied (see above), noting also that
more than the due care which was owed to plaintiff, at issue was the factual determination of damage:
“[w]hen one person in managing his own affairs causes, however innocently, damage to another, it is
obviously only just that he should be the party to suffer.”