Brown v. Collins
53 N.H. 442 (1873) (1873)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is not liable for damage caused by an unintentional trespass resulting from a lawful act if they were exercising due care and the damage was the result of an unavoidable accident.
Facts:
- A defendant was driving his team of horses on a public highway.
- The defendant was exercising ordinary and reasonable care in managing the horses.
- For an unknown reason, the horses became frightened and unmanageable.
- The defendant lost control of the horses against his will.
- The horses ran off the highway and onto the plaintiff's property.
- While on the plaintiff's land, the horses broke a stone post.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant for trespass to land in a state trial court.
- The parties agreed upon a statement of facts.
- The case was transferred to the state's highest court to decide the question of law based on the agreed-upon facts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant, who was exercising ordinary care, liable in trespass for damage caused when his horses became unmanageable without his fault and went upon the plaintiff's land?
Opinions:
Majority - Doe, J.
No. A person is not liable for damage caused by an accidental trespass if they are entirely without fault. The court rejected the English common law rule of strict liability for trespass, as articulated in cases like Rylands v. Fletcher, which would hold a person liable for damages caused by things they bring onto their land, regardless of fault. The court found this rule to be a deterrent to progress and inconsistent with modern, civilized society. Instead, it adopted the prevailing American view, exemplified by Brown v. Kendall, which requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was at fault—either by showing an unlawful intention or a lack of due care (negligence). Because the defendant was exercising ordinary care and the horses' actions were an unavoidable accident beyond his control, he cannot be held liable for the resulting damage. The defendant was as innocent as if his property had been thrown onto the plaintiff's land by a whirlwind.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark American decision that formally rejected the English doctrine of strict liability for trespass as established in Rylands v. Fletcher. It firmly established a fault-based standard for liability in cases of unintentional torts, requiring a showing of negligence or unlawful intent. This ruling was highly influential in shaping American tort law, prioritizing a negligence standard that encourages industrial and social development by not penalizing individuals for pure, unavoidable accidents that occur during lawful activities. It solidified the principle that liability should be based on culpability, not merely on the fact that one's property caused harm.
