Wise Bros Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1947] HCA 33

OF AUSTRALIA. 59

UHIGH COURT OF AUSTRAIIA.]

ISK eon, PTY. LIMITED 5 PY: APPELLANT ; | Devexpanr,

nee gare) 2 ¢

HE "COMMISSIONER FOR RAILWAYS) po soxpent, ; (NEW SOUTH WALES) . : ae ; "ewtiaee , ; $

on APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF r NEW SOUTH WALES: ? ¢—Fire—Failure o extinguish—Spread to adjoining premiaes—Inflam- yy wil :

if oe hevalehtal¥ 'in flour 'mill—Precautions Sor protection—Bvidence— Expert— 1947.

ibidity—Natural ws user of land—Rule in Rylanda v. Fletcher. peterg ss

sae As tances for Railways (N.S.W.) brought an action against a com- _ SYDNey, a

% pany, carrying on the business of, inter alia, a flour miller, alleging by three July 31; counts in his declaration : (1) negligence in the conduct of the defendant's 449: 1+ business and in allowing inflammable matter to be on the land ; (2) negligenco ADELAIDE, — in a non-natural user of the land involving accumulation of combustible Sept. 17. — _ matter without provision of proper fire-fighting equipment ; (3) non-natural Oe

Lath Fy 'user of the land. 'There was no evidence as to how the fire originated, but Kich, Starke,

"there was evidence, inter alia, that at the time of the fire a very strong wind was "iio 33 "blowing: from the defendant's premises across the adjoining premises of the 'Commissioner, cand that the defendant had combustible and explosive flour dust and fumes upon its premises where it was operating an electrically- driven flour mill and a factory plant which included a portable boiler, fire

~ box and smoke-stack. 'There was also evidence from which it could be inferred that chemical fire-extinguishers ordinarily on the defendant's premises were not available, Evidence sought by the Commissioner from an expert witness as to necessary equipment in a flour mill for fire protection was rejected by

pr pars pared on the ground that the witness was not sufficiently qualified.