## Facts

- The defendant maintained a hay-rick on his land near the plaintiff’s cottages occupied by tenants.
- The hay-rick was stacked in a manner that made it liable to spontaneous ignition, creating a foreseeable fire risk.
- Neighbors repeatedly warned the defendant over several weeks about the danger of ignition, but he kept the rick where and as it was.
- The defendant attempted a precaution by placing a vent or “chimney” through the haystack.
- The hay-rick ignited, and the resulting fire spread to and destroyed the plaintiff’s cottages.
- The plaintiff sued for property damage caused by the fire.

## Issues

1. Whether negligence should be measured by an objective standard of ordinary prudence or by a subjective standard based on whether the defendant acted honestly to the best of his own judgment.
2. Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to assess the defendant’s conduct by the caution a prudent person would exercise under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Court of Common Pleas affirmed judgment for the plaintiff and discharged the rule nisi.
- The court upheld the trial judge’s instruction that the defendant was bound to use reasonable caution as a prudent person would under the circumstances.
- The court rejected the defendant’s proposed instruction that he should not be liable if he acted bona fide according to his own best judgment.
- The court held that it was proper to leave the negligence determination to the jury under the prudent-person benchmark.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence is evaluated by an objective “ordinary prudence” standard, not by a defendant’s personal intelligence, judgment, or sincere belief that his conduct was acceptable.
- A subjective standard would provide no workable rule because individual judgment varies too widely to guide liability determinations.
- The jury decides whether conduct fell below ordinary prudence when guided by the general reasonable-person measure of care.
- A landowner must use property so as not to injure another’s property; maintaining a known fire hazard near a neighbor’s buildings can support liability when it causes damage.

## Conclusion

The court held the defendant liable because negligence is judged by the caution a person of ordinary prudence would use, and the jury could find that maintaining a warned-of, ignition-prone hay-rick near neighboring cottages fell below that standard and caused the plaintiff’s loss.


Vaughan v. Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep. 490 (C.P. 1837)