Case brief summary
If something that normally only falls or breaks because of carelessness hurts someone, and the defendant controlled it, the accident itself can show carelessness. The defendant must then explain how it happened without their fault.
Facts
A man walking on a public street was seriously hurt when a barrel of flour fell from a window above a shop. No one saw exactly why it fell, only that it came from the shop area.
Procedural history
The trial judge found no evidence of carelessness, so he dismissed the claim but let the plaintiff ask a higher court to restore the jury's award. The plaintiff then asked the Court of Exchequer to do so.
Issue
Can the simple fact that a barrel fell out of a window above a shop and hit a passerby, without any other proof of what went wrong, be enough evidence for a jury to find the shop owner careless?
Holding
Yes. The fact that the barrel fell from the defendant's premises was by itself enough evidence of carelessness to send the case to a jury, and it was up to the defendant to show he was not at fault.
Reasoning
Barrels don't normally fall from windows unless someone was careless. Since the defendant controlled the barrel and building, it made more sense for him to explain the accident than for the victim to prove details he couldn't have known.
Opinions
Majority (Pollock, C.B.): Finds that a falling barrel from a shop owner's premises is itself enough evidence of carelessness, shifting the burden to the defendant to explain.
Concurrences (Bramwell, Channell, Pigott): Each agrees that some accidents, including this one, are serious enough on their own to let a jury infer carelessness without more proof.