Stanley v Powell (1891)

Law of Torts · General Defences

Facts.

The defendant, a member of a shooting party, fired at a pheasant. A pellet from his gun glanced off the bough of a tree at an unexpected angle and struck the plaintiff, who was employed to carry cartridges.

Issue.

Is a defendant liable for an injury caused without negligence and without intention?

Held.

No. The injury was an inevitable accident — an event that could not have been avoided by ordinary care, caution and skill. In the absence of both intention and negligence, no liability arose.

Why it matters.

It is the leading authority on inevitable accident and the direct answer to the hunting-pellet problem, as Brown v Kendall is to the fighting-dogs problem.

📄 Full Law of Torts notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All Law of Torts topics