This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

At the time when the injury was occasioned to the haystack by the sparks of fire issuing from D's engine, it was not traveling at a greater speed than that prescribed by statutory Acts. The engine was constructed in conformity with the provisions of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 70, and of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 83. The injury was not occasioned by any negligence on the part of D's servants conducting or managing the same. It is clear that D conducted the activity with all reasonable care and without negligence. However, following Rylands v. Fletcher, the court stated 'that when a man brings or uses a thing of a dangerous character on his own land, he must keep it in at his own peril and is liable to the consequences, if it escapes and does injury to his neighbor,' and ruled for P. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.