Lexplug logoLexplug

Losee v. Buchanan

Unknown
51 N.Y. 476 (1873)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person is not liable for damage accidentally and unavoidably caused to a neighbor by the lawful use of their own property. Liability for such damage arises only from proof of the defendant's negligence or fault.


Facts:

  • Saratoga Paper Company operated a paper mill on its property.
  • As part of its operations, the company utilized a steam boiler.
  • The steam boiler exploded.
  • The explosion propelled pieces of the boiler and other objects onto the adjoining property of Losee.
  • These projectiles struck and caused damage to Losee's buildings and personal property.

Procedural Posture:

  • Losee sued Saratoga Paper Company and others in a New York trial court.
  • Following a first trial where the defendants were held liable without proof of negligence, the defendants appealed to the General Term (an intermediate appellate court).
  • The General Term reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that liability required proof of negligence.
  • At the second trial, a jury found for the defendants, determining they were not negligent.
  • Losee (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the judgment from the second trial to the General Term.
  • The General Term reversed the second judgment due to perceived errors in the jury charge and ordered a third trial.
  • The defendants (appellants) then appealed the General Term's order to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the accidental explosion of a steam boiler, lawfully operated on one's own premises, which causes damage to an adjoining property, render the owner liable without proof of negligence?


Opinions:

Majority - Earl, C.

No. A person who lawfully uses a steam boiler on their own property is not liable for damages caused by its accidental explosion without proof of negligence. The court rejected the English rule of strict liability established in Fletcher v. Rylands, which holds that one who brings a dangerous thing onto their land is absolutely responsible for any damage it causes if it escapes. The court reasoned that this rule is contrary to established American legal principles, which consistently require proof of fault for liability in cases of accidental harm. Analogizing to cases involving fires, broken dams, and accidental personal injuries, the court held that liability must be based on negligence. The court emphasized that the exigencies of modern, civilized society, which depends on industry and machinery, require that individuals assume the risk of unavoidable accidents from lawful activities conducted by their neighbors with due care. Imposing strict liability would stifle necessary industrial development.



Analysis:

This decision is a foundational case in American tort law, notable for its explicit rejection of the English strict liability doctrine from Rylands v. Fletcher. By cementing negligence as the standard for liability in cases of accidental harm from lawful, non-nuisance activities, the court provided crucial legal protection for nascent industries during the Industrial Revolution. This ruling established a precedent that has profoundly shaped tort law, requiring plaintiffs to prove fault rather than just causation for most unintentional injuries to person or property. It illustrates a policy choice favoring economic development over absolute protection of property rights from accidental harm.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Losee v. Buchanan (1873) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Losee v. Buchanan