VAUGHAN V. MENLOVE, 132 ENG. REP.490 (C.P.1837)
| Citation 132 Eng. Rep.490 (C.P.1837) |
| Date of Judgement 23rd January 1837 |
| Court Court of Common Plea |
| Appellant Vaughan |
| Respondent Menlove |
| Bench Tindal CJ and Park, Gaselee, Vaughan JJ |
| Case Type Tort Law Case |
FACTS OF THE CASE
Menlove (Defendant) owned a stack of hay placed near the cottage of the Vaughan (Plaintiff). The defendant was warned by the neighbour that in some substantial circumstances the stack of hay may catch fire and can damage the cottages of the plaintiff but the Defendant replied that he would “chance it.” Defendant made an aperture or chimney through the rick but in spite of all this due to the spontaneous heating the hay catches fires and spreads over to the plaintiff’s causing damage to the cottages.
The Plaintiff (Vaughan) filed a suit against the Defendant (Menlove) for the negligence on his part causing damage to the plaintiff’s cottage.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
1. Whether the Defendant has acted as to the best of his judgement?
2. Whether the fire was caused by negligent behaviour under the circumstances, and whether it was made clear that the defendant acted as a reasonable man would have?
RULE OF LAW
An impartial party is the defendant in a negligence case. The person has behaved in a way that goes against what a prudent and reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
TRIAL
During the trial, the jury instructions to consider whether the defendant had engaged in wilful misconduct that contributed to the fire. The judge also stated that “the defendant was duty bound to proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances.” The defendant was deemed negligent by the jury.
APPEAL
In his appeal of the trial court’s decision, the defendant argued that the jury should have been given the task of determining “whether he acted bona fide to the best of his judgement; if he had, he wouldn’t be held accountable for the unfortunate fact that he lacked the highest level of intelligence.”
The bench consisting of Tindal CJ, Park J, and Vaughan J, rejected the defendant’s argument and determine that the jury instructions from the lower court were appropriate.
Whether the Defendant had acted honestly and bona fide in accordance with his best judgement would draw a line that is so ambiguous as to provide no guidance at all. Instead, we should adhere to the rule that calls for caution in all of these situations, as a man of ordinary prudence would do [because individual judgements are….] as variable as the length of each.
The court stated that even though this was a first-instance case, the “man of ordinary prudence” standard was supported by a similar duty of care applied in bailment cases, in which liability was only imposed for negligence relative to that standard. The long-established maxim that people must use their property in a way that does not harm others’ property (sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas) was also seen by the court as supporting the reasonable man standard. Finally the court decided that it was appropriate for the jury to decide whether the defendant was liable for negligence in violation of the reasonable person standard (“The care taken by a prudent man has always been the rue laid down; and as to whether the defendant was liable for the negligence in violation of the reasonable person standard”).
REFERENCE
This Article is written by Manvi Verma of The Law School, University Of Jammu and Intern at Legal Vidhiya
