Goldman v Hargrave [1967]

Facts

  • Lightning set fire the defendant’s tree
  • Although the defendant had the means to put the fire out, he chose to let it burn out
  • The fire spread to a neighbours adjoining property, causing damage

Issue

  • Was the defendant liable for not acting and allowing the fire spreading; could a duty be owed to an adjoining neighbour

Decision

  • Liability allowed

Reasoning

  • 3 conditions were set for adjoining neighbour cases. The defendant satisfied them all
  1. The defendant must have knowledge of the danger
  2. The damage must have been a foreseeable consequence
  3. The defendant must have had the ability to abate the foreseeable consequence occurring
RELATED CASE  Edwards v Railway Executive [1952]

Posted in Tort Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 25th April 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy