DURACK V. BAKER 9/1924

iqau|g

HIGH couRT 10:9:1924

Durack ~ Appellant (defendant)

and

Baker © Respondent (Plaintiff)

>

/ i i Tuner |

ISAACS: AG To: aa

This is an action in which the appellant was sued by the rées- pendent for damages caused by a fire which had been lit on tle appellant's land, The action was framed in three ways - the fire was said to be unlawful because of omission +o comply with the Bush Fires Act 1902; then negligence was alleged by reason of various matters including these two - the appellant did not take any precautions to confine the fire to his own land and the appellant uuthorised the lighting and sanctioned the fire +o be 1it and to continue alight on his land under circumstances when it was highly dangerous to do so pecause of a strong wind then plowing, It is unnecessary to refer to the other instances of alleged omission, Then there was the third ground that the respondent was an injured person,

The case was heard by His Honour the Chief Justice of

Western Australia when apparently His Honour said he was not prepared to find negligmce and proceeded to determine the matter on the basis of Craig v Yurker (8 W,A.L.R 161) adopting the principle laid down in_Rylands v Fletcher.

The learned Chief Justice came to some conclusions of fact which ware are not embodied in his judgment. But whet does appear are the findings that the fire which caused the injury to the respondent originated frou a stump which had been lit by Kefpilla by defendants (aypeilants) direction and that the fire proceeding from that stump ultimately reached respondent's

land by the agency of a strong wind from the north west whibh

a. carried it in the direction of the respondent's land.

The appellant having /f ind ing of negligence ageinst hin chellenges the law in Craig vy Varker which is the subject matter of a great mass of authority and as indicated in Court the parties are raising the question whether burning off operation is always