Fowler v Lanning [1959] 1 QB 426

KEY POINTS

• A plaintiff does not need to plead negligence in a trespass case. In a trespass to the person case involving negligence, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate negligence on the part of the defendant.

• In a trespass to the person case involving an unintentional act like a shooting accident, proof of negligence is not necessary for a successful action.

• In trespass cases, there may be distinctions between injuries occurring on a highway and those occurring elsewhere, depending on specific legal regulations or circumstances.

FACTS

• The plaintiff's statement of claim stated that on a specific date and location, "the defendant shot the plaintiff," resulting in personal injuries outlined in the particulars. 

• The defendant, in response, denied the factual allegations and argued that the statement of claim lacked a valid cause of action. 

• The defendant's objection was based on the assertion that the plaintiff didn't specify whether the shooting was intentional or negligent.

JUDGEMENT

• The court ruled that for unintentional trespass cases, a valid claim required both the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's negligence. This held regardless of where the incident occurred. 

• Negligence was crucial unless the circumstances showed the plaintiff knowingly accepted the risk of inevitable harm, extending this to scenarios where a neighbor's lawful actions caused harm. 

• The plaintiff was responsible for proving such negligence, demanding clear allegations and specifics. Since the plaintiff didn't meet this requirement, their claim needed more merit. Moreover, if "res ipsa loquitur" applied, explicit pleading of negligence was necessary according to the judgment.

COMMENTARY

• The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had shot them on a specific date and place, causing injuries. The defendant countered by denying the allegations and arguing that the claim lacked a valid basis. The defendant's contention stemmed from the plaintiff's failure to clarify whether the shooting was intentional or negligent.

• The court determined that in cases of unintentional trespass, a valid claim necessitated the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's negligence, regardless of the incident's location.

• Negligence was crucial unless circumstances showed the plaintiff willingly accepted the risk of unavoidable harm, even when a neighbor's lawful actions caused injury. The plaintiff was tasked with proving this negligence, necessitating explicit and specific allegations. The plaintiff failed to meet this standard, so their claim needed more strength.

• Furthermore, if the "res ipsa loquitur" doctrine applied, the judgment mandated a clear pleading of negligence.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Plaintiff stated that Defendant shot at him, but gave no evidence that it was intentional or negligent and Defendant claimed no cause of action. 

• Diplock J held that that trespass to the person did not lie if the injury to the plaintiff was caused unintentionally and without negligence. 

• If negligence was a necessary ingredient of unintentional trespass only where the circumstances showed that the plaintiff had taken upon himself the risk of inevitable injury, the plaintiff today must be considered as taking upon himself such a risk arising from any acts of his neighbour which, in the absence of damage to the plaintiff, would not in themselves be unlawful.

• The onus of proving negligence, where the trespass was not intentional, lay upon the plaintiff.