Hazelwood v Webber [1934] HCA 62

Hazelwood v Webber [1934] HCA 62

An occupier who burns off stubble in midsummer, resulting in the escape of fire and damage to neighbouring land, is strictly liable at common law, independent of negligence, as such activity is not a 'natural' or 'ordinary' use in Australian conditions. The relevant New South Wales statutes do not reduce this liability except for fire uses expressly authorised and performed without negligence. The jury's finding of no negligence does not exonerate the defendant from strict liability.

Parties
Plaintiff: Frederick John Webber; Defendant: Henry James Hazelwood
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Tort/damages for Fire Damage / Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Liability for Escape of Fire, Common Law Liability, Statutory Interpretation, Non Natural Use of Land, Farming Operations, Negligence
Torts Liability for Escape of Fire Common Law Liability Statutory Interpretation Non Natural Use of Land Farming Operations Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick John Webber

Plaintiff

Henry James Hazelwood

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort/damages for Fire Damage / Appeal From Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether liability for damage caused by escape of fire depends on negligence or is strict under common law
  2. 2 Whether burning-off stubble in midsummer is an ordinary, natural, or reasonable use of land
  3. 3 Whether statutes (Careless Use of Fire Act 1912, Bush Fires Act 1930) abrogate or modify common law liability for fire

Ratio Decidendi

An occupier who burns off stubble in midsummer, resulting in the escape of fire and damage to neighbouring land, is strictly liable at common law, independent of negligence, as such activity is not a 'natural' or 'ordinary' use in Australian conditions. The relevant New South Wales statutes do not reduce this liability except for fire uses expressly authorised and performed without negligence. The jury's finding of no negligence does not exonerate the defendant from strict liability.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.