## Facts

- Dickenson sued Watson, described as an officer carrying a gun, in trespass for assault and battery.
- Watson discharged his gun in an area where he believed he was alone.
- Watson was not alone; the shot struck Dickenson.
- Dickenson lost sight in one eye as a result of the gunshot.
- The trial court entered judgment for Watson, and Dickenson sought review in the King’s Bench.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who unintentionally shoots another while voluntarily discharging a firearm is liable in trespass for assault and battery.
2. Whether the defendant can avoid trespass liability by showing the injury was an “inevitable accident,” meaning it occurred wholly without the defendant’s fault.
3. How the direct-injury form of action in trespass allocates responsibility for accidental bodily harm caused by a dangerous instrumentality.

## Decision

- The King’s Bench considered the case as part of the line of direct-injury trespass actions involving accidental shootings.
- The court’s disposition on appeal (affirmance or reversal) cannot be stated with certainty from the accessible record.
- The case is treated in later accounts as turning on whether the shooting could be excused as an “inevitable accident” (no fault) rather than as a wrongful trespass.

## Legal Principles

- In early common-law pleading, trespass lay for direct and immediate physical injury, including injuries that were accidental in the sense of lacking intent.
- In such trespass actions, a defendant who directly caused the injury could avoid liability only by proving the harm occurred wholly without fault (the “inevitable accident” defense).
- Where a defendant’s voluntary act (such as firing a gun) directly causes bodily harm, the central question becomes whether the defendant’s conduct was free from blame to a demanding degree, not merely whether the harm was unintended.
- The case is commonly used to illustrate judicial scrutiny of precautions taken before using a firearm and the historical movement from outcome-based liability in trespass toward conduct-based fault analysis.

## Conclusion

Dickenson v. Watson is remembered as an early King’s Bench accidental-shooting case framing trespass liability around a narrow excuse for unavoidable injury, with the decisive inquiry being whether the defendant could show the shooting occurred entirely without fault.


Dickenson v. Watson, 84 Eng. Rep. 1218 (K.B. 1682)