## Facts

- Harvey Losee owned property neighboring a paper mill in Schuylerville, New York.
- Saratoga Paper Company operated a steam boiler at its mill; Coe S. Buchanan and Daniel A. Bullard acted as trustees/agents for the company.
- The boiler was purchased from reputable manufacturers (the Clutes).
- On February 13, 1864, the boiler exploded and was thrown onto Losee’s premises, damaging several buildings and destroying personal property.
- Losee claimed the projection of the boiler onto his land was a direct trespass and sought to impose liability without proving negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether owners/operators of a steam boiler are liable, without proof of negligence, for neighboring property damage caused by an accidental boiler explosion under a trespass or strict-liability theory.
2. Whether an operator may be liable for explosion damage allegedly caused by a manufacturing defect absent proof the defect was known or discoverable by reasonable inspection or testing.

## Decision

- The court held that damages from an accidental boiler explosion are not recoverable without proof of fault or negligence by the operator.
- The court rejected the plaintiff’s characterization of the explosion and resulting projection of the boiler as a “direct trespass” imposing liability irrespective of negligence.
- The court stated that if the explosion resulted from a manufacturing defect, the operator is not liable absent proof the defect was known or discoverable upon examination or by known tests.
- The negligence requirement applied where the boiler was a lawful, non-nuisance use of the defendant’s premises when operated with care and skill.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful, non-nuisance use of property involving inanimate instrumentalities (such as steam boilers) does not create liability for accidental harm to neighbors without proof of negligence.
- Physical invasion of neighboring property caused by an accidental explosion is not treated as a trespass imposing liability without fault.
- When harm is allegedly caused by a latent manufacturing defect, the operator’s liability turns on whether the defect was known or reasonably discoverable through inspection or recognized testing.
- Strict liability is not imposed merely because an activity can cause serious harm; fault-based liability governs absent nuisance or direct interference with a protected property right.

## Conclusion

The court declined to impose strict or trespass-based liability for damage from an accidental boiler explosion, holding that recovery against the boiler’s operator required proof of negligence, including proof that any manufacturing defect was known or reasonably discoverable through appropriate inspection or testing.


Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N.Y. 476 (N.Y. Comm’n of Appeals 1873)