L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868)
The plaintiff occupied a mine and works under a close of land.1 The defendants owned a mill in the neighborhood.2 They proposed to construct a reservoir for storing water to be used about their mill upon another close of land.3 This close may be taken as adjoining the plaintiff's close, although some intervening land lay between the two.4
Underneath the defendants' close on which they proposed to construct the reservoir were old and disused mining passages and works.5 These included five vertical shafts filled up with soil and rubbish along with some horizontal shafts communicating with them.6 No person was aware of the existence of the vertical shafts or the horizontal works.7 In the course of working his mine the plaintiff gradually worked through the seams of coal underneath the close and came into contact with the old and disused works underneath the defendants' close.8
The defendants constructed the reservoir through the agency and inspection of an engineer and contractor.9 They took no personal part in the works and remained unaware of any want of security.10 The engineer and contractor did not exercise reasonable care and caution with respect to the vertical shafts.11 When the reservoir was constructed and filled or partly filled with water, the weight of the water broke through the disused and imperfectly filled-up vertical shafts.12
The water passed down the shafts into the horizontal workings under the defendants' close and then into the workings under the plaintiff's close, flooding his mine and causing considerable damage.13 The Court of Exchequer, on a special case stating these facts, held that the plaintiff had established no cause of action.14 The Court of Exchequer Chamber unanimously arrived at the conclusion that there was a cause of action, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to damages.15 The defendants appealed to the House of Lords.
Whether the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for damage caused when water from their reservoir escaped through old mining shafts and flooded the plaintiff's mine?16
The person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril. If he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by shewing that the escape was owing to the Plaintiff's default. Or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God. But as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.17
Yes. By constructing a reservoir on their land to store water for use about their mill, the defendants brought onto the land and kept there water in quantities and in a manner not the result of any natural work or operation on or under the land, thereby making a non-natural use of the close.18 When the reservoir was filled or partly filled, the water broke through the disused vertical shafts, passed through the horizontal workings, and flooded the plaintiff's mine, causing considerable damage as the natural consequence of its escape.19 No excuse existed based on the plaintiff's default or vis major or the act of God, so the defendants are liable for the damage.20
The defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the damage caused to his mine.21