Stanley v. Powell

[1891] 1 Queen's Bench 86Queen's Bench Division (England)1891Law of Torts

Rule established

Where harm results despite the defendant's exercise of full reasonable care, through a genuinely unforeseeable and unavoidable occurrence, this constitutes an inevitable accident excusing liability.

Facts

The defendant and plaintiff were both members of a shooting party, engaged in a lawful activity
The defendant fired at a bird in the ordinary and proper manner, exercising reasonable care
The shot unexpectedly ricocheted off a tree and struck the plaintiff, causing injury
The plaintiff sued in negligence

Issue

Whether a defendant who exercised reasonable care, but whose shot ricocheted unpredictably and caused injury, is liable in negligence.

Held

The defendant had exercised all reasonable care in aiming and firing
The ricochet's occurrence was genuinely unforeseeable and could not have been guarded against
This constituted an inevitable accident
No negligence liability arose since the harm did not result from any failure of reasonable care

Ratio Decidendi

Inevitable accident excuses liability where the harm results despite the defendant's exercise of full reasonable care and foresight, through an occurrence that could not reasonably have been anticipated or avoided. The defence requires genuine unavoidability.

How to use it in an exam

Part A: Foundational illustration of inevitable accident as a defence.
Key line: "A ricocheting shot causing injury, despite the defendant's exercise of reasonable care, constituted an inevitable accident excusing liability."

Source

Source: [1891] 1 QB 86

This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.

Cited in study notes

Law of TortsPlaintiff the Wrongdoer and Inevitable AccidentInevitable accident: harm unforeseeable despite reasonable care