Hannon v McLarty - [1914] HCA 47

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Vuisance-Negligence-Highway - Wheat left on highway-Horses injured by

The defendant left a waggon loaded with bags of wheat, unattended and unprotected except by a dog, on the side of a country road three chains wide. The plaintiff's horses were by his direction turned out of his yard on to the road to find their way unattended, as they were accustomed to do, to a paddock seven miles away. The horses tore open some of the bags and ate

18 CLR 576

so much of the wheat that some of them died and others were injured. In an action in a County Court based on public nuisance and on negligence, the Judge found that wheat was so strong an allurement for horses that they would break through anything possible of being broken through to get at it, and that it was customary in country districts to leave waggon-loads of wheat on the roadside unprotected, and he gave judgment for the plaintiff, but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed that decision and gave judgment

Held, that special leave to appeal to the High Court should be refused. Special leave to appeal from Hannon v. McLarty, (1914) V.L.R., 526 36 A.L.T., 62, refused.

MOTION for special leave to appeal.

An action was bought in the County Court at Swan Hill, Victoria, by John Hannon seeking to recover £209 damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff's horses. The particulars of demand set out that the defendant wrongfully left wheat unpro- tected on a certain public highway whereby a public nuisance was caused, and that four horses belonging to the plaintiff, which were lawfully on such highway, were killed and others were damaged by eating such wheat, and, alternatively, that the plain- tiff claimed damages against the defendant for leaving the wheat unprotected.

The evidence established that from 9 p.m. until midnight on 12th February 1914 the defendant left a waggon loaded with bags of wheat on the side of a country road three chains wide, the wheat being unattended and unprotected except by a dog which was tied to the waggon; that on the same day between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. the plaintiff's team of horses were by his direction let out from his yard on to the road to find their way unattended, as they were accustomed to do, to a paddock seven miles distant and beyond the spot where the waggon was and that the horses tore open some of the bags and ate SO much of the wheat that four of them died and the others were rendered unfit for work.

The learned County Court Judge found (interalia) that wheat was most attractive to horses and constituted an allurement SO strong that they would break through anything possible of being broken through to get at it; that the defendant knew of this allurement; that the dog was not a reasonable protection for

18 CLR 577

keeping horses from the wheat;…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hannon v McLarty

Details

AGLC: Hannon v McLarty [1914] HCA 47
Case: [1914] HCA 47
Decision Date: 8 September 1914

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a decision by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from an action brought by John Hannon against McLarty in the County Court, seeking damages for the death and injury of his horses. Hannon alleged that McLarty had created a public nuisance and acted negligently by leaving a wagon loaded with wheat unattended on the side of a country road, which his horses subsequently ate.

The legal issues before the courts were whether the defendant's conduct in leaving the wheat unattended on the highway constituted a public nuisance, and alternatively, whether the defendant was negligent in failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm to passing horses. The County Court Judge found in favour of the plaintiff, determining that wheat was a strong allurement to horses and that the defendant's protection was inadequate. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court held that the horses were trespassing on the highway, and that the presence of the loaded wagon did not constitute a nuisance, or if it did, it was not the cause of the plaintiff's loss. Regarding negligence, the Court found that the defendant was not negligent as he could not reasonably have foreseen the specific outcome. The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, indicated that no general question of law arose and that the Supreme Court's decision was manifestly right.

Orders