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

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

Menlove (D) built a hayrick near the boundary of his property and next to Vaughan's (P) property. D was told on many occasions over a five-week period that the rick was a fire hazard. D ignored the warnings by indicating to all that he had insurance and he would chance it. D did build a chimney through the rick. The rick burned from the heat generated and the fire damaged the surrounding cottages. P sued D for damages claiming D was negligent in maintaining the rick in a dangerous condition. The trial court instructed the jury that they were to determine if D was grossly negligent under the standard of care of that of a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances. A verdict was given to P. A rule nisi for a new trial was obtained because the jury should have been instructed to determine whether D had acted bona fide to his best judgment and not under the standard of ordinary prudence.

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

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