''Scott v. Shepherd'' 96 Eng. Rep. 525 (K.B. 1773), commonly known as the "flying squib case," is an important

English tort law English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requi ...

case on remoteness and the principle of ''

novus actus interveniens Novus ("new" in Latin) may refer to: Companies * Novus Biologicals, a biotech company based in Littleton, Colorado, US * Novus Entertainment, a Canadian telecommunications company * Novus International, an animal health and nutrition company * Nov ...

'' as it related to the division between trespass and case.

Facts

Shepherd tossed a squib into a crowded market in the town of

Milborne Port Milborne Port is a village, electoral ward and civil parish in Somerset, England, east of Sherborne, and in the South Somerset district. It has a population of 2,802. The parish includes the hamlets of Milborne Wick and Kingsbury Regis. The vil ...

Somerset ( en, All The People of Somerset) , locator_map = , coordinates = , region = South West England , established_date = Ancient , established_by = , preceded_by = , origin = , lord_lieutenant_office =Lord Lieutenant of Somerset , lord_ ...

, where it landed on the table of a gingerbread merchant named Yates. Willis, a bystander, grabbed the squib and threw it across the market to protect himself and the gingerbread. Unfortunately, the squib landed in the goods of another merchant named Ryal. Ryal immediately grabbed the squib and tossed it away, accidentally hitting Scott in the face just as the squib exploded. The explosion put out one of Scott's eyes.

Judgment

The majority held Shepherd was fully liable, because, said De Gray CJ, "I do not consider he intermediariesas free agents in the present case, but acting under a compulsive necessity for their own safety and self-preservation." Nares J wrote the following. De Grey CJ's judgment was as follows.

Dissent

Blackstone J argued, reflecting the arcane distinctions between trespass on the case and vi et armis, that there was no liability for indirect consequences.

References

{{Reflist

Facts

Judgment

Dissent

References

See also