## Facts

- John Jeffers owned a hotel (the Sherman House) and related frame buildings on a lot in East Saginaw, Michigan.
- Jesse Hoyt owned and operated a nearby steam sawmill about 200–300 feet away.
- For years, the mill’s chimney habitually emitted burning sparks and cinders when the mill ran, which traveled significant distances and were often seen landing while still on fire.
- Sparks had previously ignited materials and buildings in the vicinity, including multiple prior fires on Jeffers’s property; nearby clothing and surfaces were also damaged by sparks and soot.
- The risk was highest when the wind blew from the southwest toward Jeffers’s buildings.
- On August 17, 1870, while the mill was operating, Jeffers’s hotel and associated structures (barn, shed, wash-house) burned and were destroyed.
- No witness saw a spark ignite the hotel, but Jeffers attributed the fire to sparks from Hoyt’s chimney.
- Spark-arresting devices were known and effective on other equipment (e.g., locomotives and steamboats), though they were not customary on brick sawmill chimneys in the locality.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of the chimney’s prior spark emissions and prior similar fires was admissible to prove causation circumstantially for the later fire.
2. Whether the standard of reasonable care in operating a hazardous business was controlled by local industry custom or by the foreseeable danger created.
3. Whether, if negligence caused ignition, liability extended to all buildings destroyed in the resulting conflagration or only to the structure first ignited.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Jeffers and upheld the jury’s verdict.
- The court held that evidence of habitual spark emission and prior similar fires was properly admitted as circumstantial proof of causation.
- The court held Hoyt negligent for failing to employ adequate precautions against known, recurring spark danger, notwithstanding the lack of a local custom to use spark-catchers on sawmill chimneys.
- The court held damages could include destruction of all buildings burned as a natural and probable consequence of the negligently communicated fire.

## Legal Principles

- Causation in negligence may be established by strong circumstantial evidence when direct proof is unavailable, including evidence of an instrumentality’s habitual behavior and prior similar occurrences.
- Evidence of prior similar incidents may be admitted to show the physical tendencies and known risks of the alleged source, and to support an inference of causation in the event at issue.
- Reasonable care is measured by what a prudent person would do in view of the danger reasonably to be anticipated; industry custom is relevant but not conclusive.
- A defendant who negligently starts or communicates a fire is liable for all harm that is the natural and probable result of the fire’s spread, including destruction of multiple structures when such spread is foreseeable.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a negligence judgment against a sawmill operator where longstanding, known spark emissions supported an inference that the mill caused a neighboring fire, held that customary practices did not define the full measure of reasonable care in dangerous operations, and allowed recovery for all buildings destroyed as a foreseeable consequence of the negligently set fire.


Hoyt v. Jeffers, 30 Mich. 181 (Mich. 1874)