Losee v. Buchanan

New York Court of Appeals · 1873 · Torts

Tortsstrict liabilityrejection of Rylandsboiler explosionsocial utilitystrict liabilitynegligencesteam boiler

Facts

The defendants had placed and operated a steam boiler on their own land. The plaintiff sought recovery for damage caused when the boiler exploded and was cast onto his premises. The plaintiff argued that this amounted to a direct trespass and that defendants were liable without any proof of negligence. The case was tried on the theory that liability depended on negligence, and the jury resolved the negligence question against only the Saratoga Paper Company.

Issue

Whether the owners or operators of a steam boiler lawfully kept on their own premises are liable for damage caused by its accidental explosion without proof of negligence. More broadly, the court considered whether such an explosion should be treated as a direct trespass creating absolute liability.

Rule

Where a person lawfully places and uses on his own land a thing that is not a nuisance and does not become one through the manner of its use, he is not liable for accidental and unavoidable injury to another's person or property without proof of fault or negligence. In this country, the owner of a steam boiler, like one who lawfully maintains a dam or fire, is liable only upon proof of negligence, not under an absolute duty to prevent all escape or accident.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Redwood Textile Works lawfully operates a large industrial press inside its mill in Albany, New York. The press was regularly inspected, showed no discoverable defect, and was used with ordinary care, but it suddenly shatters and a metal fragment flies onto neighboring property, damaging Nora Kim's greenhouse.

If Nora sues seeking recovery without proving negligence, what is the strongest argument for Redwood Textile Works?

Explanation. The majority rule is that one who lawfully places and uses on his own land a thing that is not a nuisance is not liable for accidental, unavoidable injury to another's property without proof of fault or negligence. The court rejected absolute liability for escaped force from lawful, non-nuisance machinery. The other choices are too broad or incorrect: crossing a boundary may still be actionable in cases of direct invasion, and negligence remains a valid theory.