INEVITABLE ACCIDENTS WITH

THE CASE LAW HOLMES V.

MATHER .

INEVITABLE ACCIDENT:-It means an unexpected injury which could not have been avoided in spite of
a reasonable care on the part of the defendant. Inevitable accident doctrine is a principle of tort
law that says that a person cannot be liable for an accident that was not foreseeable and that could
not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care. Highest degree of caution is not
required. It is enough that it is reasonable under the circumstances. However, the courts rarely use
this doctrine at present and rely instead on the basis concepts of duty, negligence, and proximate
cause. It is also called unavoidable-accident doctrine. In the case we have just been considering the
act by which the damage is caused has been specially authorised. Let us now turn to the class of
cases which differ from these in that the act is not specially authorised, but is simply an act which, in
itself, a man may lawfully do then and their; or (it is perhaps better to say ) which he may do without
breaking any positive law. We shall assume from the first that there is no want of reasonable care on
the actor’s part. For it is undoubted that if by failure in due care I caused harm to another, however
innocent my intention, I am liable. This has already been noted in a general way. No less is it certain,
on the other hand, that I am not answerable for mere omission to do anything which it was not my
specific duty to do.

It is true that the very fact of an accident happening is commonly some evidence, and may be cogent
evidence, of want of due care. But that is a question of fact, and there remain many cases in which
accidents do happen notwithstanding that all reasonable and practicable care is used. Even the
“consummate care” of an expert using special precaution in a matter of special risk or importance is
not always successful. Slight negligence may be divided by a very fine line from unsuccessful
diligence.

Condition and inquiry. The question, then, is reduced to this, whether an action lies against me for
harm resulting by inevitable accident from an act lawful in itself, and done by me in a reasonable
and careful manner. Inevitable accident is not a verbally accurate term, but can hardly mislead ; it
does not mean absolutely inevitable , but it means not avoidable by any such precaution as a
reasonable man, doing such an act then and there, could be expected to take.

HOLMES V. MATHER:-

Lastly, we have two decision well within our own time which are all but conclusive. In HOLMES V.
MATHER the defendant was out with a pair of horses driven by his groom. The horses ran away, and
the groom, being unable to stop them, guided them as best he could ;at last he failed to get them
clear round a corner, and they knocked down the plaintiff. If the driver had not attempt to term the
corner, they would have run straight into a shop-front, and (it was suggested ) would not have
touched the plaintiff at all. The jury found there was no negligence. Here the driver was certainly
acting for he was trying to turn the horses. And it was are argued, on the authority of old cases and
dicta, that trespass had been committed. The court refused to take this view carrying on the affairs
of life, people as they go along roads must except, or put up with, such mischief as reasonable care
on the part of others cannot avoid “. Thus it seems to be made a question not only defendant being
free from blame, but of the accident being such as his incident to the ordinary use of public roads.
The same ideas is expressed in the judgement of the Exchequer chamber in Rylands v. fletcher,
where it is even said that all the cases in which inevitable accidents has been held an excuse can be
explained on the principle “that the circumstances were such as to show that the plaintiff had taken
that risk himself”. A person causing injury by an act which is neither wilful nor negligent is not liable.
The defendant’s horsed were startled by a dog barking and ran away. Notwithstanding the efforts of
the defendant’s servant, an efficient driver, plaintiff was injured. Held, the defendant was not liable.
The court found that the incident was accident and that the defendant had taken due care and could
not have foreseen the event.