Stanley v Powell (1891) 1 QB 86 is a major judgement in English tort law, specifically regarding the doctrine of inevitable accident.
Ratio Decidendi: For a defendant to be held liable in tort, there must be proof of negligence or intentional harm. If an injury results from an unforeseeable and unavoidable accident, even with all reasonable care taken, the defendant may not be held liable.
| Case Name & Citation: Stanley v Powell [1891] 1 QB 86 |
| Court: Queen’s Bench Division, England and Wales |
| Areas of Law: Tort Law, Trespass to the Person, Negligence |
Key Facts (Stanley v Powell)
Stanley, the plaintiff, and Powell, the defendant, were part of a pheasant-shooting party. Powell fired at a pheasant, but the bullet ricocheted off a tree and accidentally struck Stanley in the eye.
Stanley sued Powell for negligence.
Legal Issue
Was Powell liable for the injury?
Court’s Judgment
The court held that Powell was not liable.
The injury was accidental, and Powell had not acted negligently. It was an unforeseeable incident that could not have been prevented even with reasonable care.
The defense of inevitable accident applied.
List of references:
- https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/fault-is-the-cornerstone-of-the-tort-law-contract-law-essay.php
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/inevitable-accident-law-torts
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/195-sample.pdf
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW:
- What Did Geyer v Downs (1977) Decide on Supervision?
- Badenach v Calvert [2016] HCA 18: Solicitor Liability in Wills
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950] on Workplace Negligence
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.