Byrne v Boadle

Facts

A barrel of flour fell from a second-story loft and hit the plaintiff on his head. Under these conditions, the plaintiff could not provide direct evidence as to whether the person responsible for the barrel had breached his duty of care.

Judgment

Initially, in the lower court the case was non-suited through a direct verdict because the plaintiff could provide no evidence. Subsequently the appellate court concluded that under the conditions, the fact of the accident itself provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the breach of a duty of care. Baron Pollock said the following.