## Facts

- Powell owned land next to a public highway and kept a rick (stack) of hay adjacent to the road.
- Fall operated a steam-powered traction engine on the highway alongside Powell’s property.
- Sparks escaped from the engine during ordinary operation and ignited Powell’s hay, causing fire damage.
- Fall’s engine was operated in compliance with the applicable statutory regime regulating traction engines.
- There was no proof of negligent construction, maintenance, or operation of the engine.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who uses a steam traction engine on a public highway, without negligence and with statutory authorization, is nonetheless strictly liable for damage caused by sparks escaping and igniting neighboring property.
2. Whether statutory permission to operate a traction engine displaces common-law liability absent clear legislative language.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for Powell and dismissed Fall’s appeal.
- The court held Fall liable for the fire damage even though there was no negligence and the engine was lawfully operated.
- The court treated the operation of the traction engine near combustible property as an activity of a dangerous character because sparks were a foreseeable incident of its use.
- Statutory authorization to operate the engine did not immunize Fall from civil liability absent clear words excluding such liability.

## Legal Principles

- A person who brings onto land, or uses, a thing of a dangerous character must keep it at his peril and is liable for damage caused by its escape, regardless of negligence.
- The strict-liability rationale associated with escape of dangerous things can apply to dangerous activities, including operation of industrial machinery, not only to static accumulations.
- Compliance with a regulatory statute does not, by itself, negate common-law liability for resulting harm unless the statute clearly displaces that liability.
- Where an activity foreseeably creates a special risk to neighboring property (such as emission of sparks), the actor bears the loss when that risk materializes.

## Conclusion

The court imposed strict liability for fire damage caused by sparks emitted from a lawfully operated steam traction engine, holding that statutory compliance and absence of negligence did not bar recovery when a dangerous activity foreseeably caused harm to neighboring property.


Powell v. Fall, 5 Q.B.D. 597 (C.A. 1880)