Odger's English Common Law

PRIVATK RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF TUBLIC NUISANCES. 501
The owner of a piece of waste land separated from the highway by a
rotten wooden fence belonging to him was held liable for injuries caused
to a boy who climbed on to the fence. The Court held that the fence in
its ruinous condition constituted a danger to those lawfully using the high-
way, and therefore amounted to a nuisance, and that this nuisance was the
cause of the injury sustained by the boy. 1
So, too, it is the duty of any one who diverts a highway under statutory
powers to take proper precautions, by fencing or otherwise, to protect
passengers from injury through their inadvertently continuing to use the
former track. 2
Again, any one who uses any part of a highway in an
unusual and unreasonable manner, or in a way that is not
necessary in order to enable him to enjoy his right of using
the highway, 3 and thereby causes special damage to another,
is liable to an action at the suit of that other.
Thus if a man leaves a steam plough or a roller or a heap of refuse on
a strip of grass which is part of a highway, and thereby frightens the
plaintiff's horse and causes him injury, he will be liable in damages. 4
if a man repeatedly causes large crowds to assemble on a portion of
a highway, and thus obstructs the access to adjoining premises. 6 So is
a tramway company which sprinkles salt on the snow. 6 And if a water
company under its statutory powers places in a highway an apparatus which
remains under its control, it is liable for injuries caused by neglect to keep
it in repair. 7 A mis-firing motor cycle, which frightens horses on a public
8 9
highway, is a public nuisance but a skidding motor bus is not. ;
So, too, where a railway company employed a contractor to build a bridge
to carry the railway over a public road, and the contractor's servants negli-
gently let fall a large stone, which struck and killed a man using the road
below, it was held that his widow had no right of action against the railway
company, but could recover damages from the contractor ;
So,
for he had been
i Harrold v. Watney, [1898] 2 Q. B. 320 ; and see Coohe v. Midland Great
Western Ry. of Ireland, [1909] A. C. 229 ; Lath-am v. R. Johnson \ .\ephew, Ltd.,
[1913] 1 K. B. 398, and ante, p. 428.
2 Burst v. Taylor (1885), 14. Q. B. D. 918.
» Chiclwster v. Foster, [1906] 1 K. B. 167 ; HeatlCs Garage, Ltd. v. Hodges,
[1916] 2KB. 370.
-< Harris v. Mobbs (1878), 3 Ex. D. 268; Wilkin* v. Bay (1883), 12 Q. B. D.
110 ; Brown v. Eastern and Midlands Ry. Co. (1S89), 22 Q. B. D. 391 ; Jeffrey v. St.
Pancras Vestry (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 618 ; but see Higgins v. Searle (1909), 100 L. T.
280.
6 Barber v. Penley, [1893] 2 Ch. 447.
6 Ogston v. Aberdeen District Tramways Co., [1897] A. C. 111.
1 Chapman v. Fylde Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 599.
8 English v. Sewell (1908), 72 J. P. (Journal) 400; and see Turner v. Coates,
[1917] 1 K. B. 670.
a Parker v. London General Omnibus Co. (1909), 25 Times L. B. 429 ; Wing v.
London General Omnibus Co., [1909] 2 K. B. 652.