Case of the Thorns
The Case of the Thorns YB 6 Ed 4, 7a pl 18, is an important historical court case from the King's Bench in common law torts. The English case, which occurred in the 15th century, is the earliest record of a common law court basing its decision on the now fundamental principle of torts: That if an individual suffers damages at the hand of another, that individual has a right to be compensated.
The case was cited approvingly by United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr as a leading case
in tort law.
The case, technically cited as Hulle v. Orynge 1466. Y.B.M. 6 Edw. IV, folio 7, placitum 18., is still widely used in American law schools in introductory tort classes into the 21st century.
Background
The defendant owned a 1-acre farm adjoining the plaintiff's 5 acres, which were separated by a hedge of thorn bush. The defendant was trying to retrieve thorns from a dividing hedge which had fallen onto the Plaintiff's property. In retrieving the thorns the defendant had damaged some of the plaintiff's crops; specifically he "trampled and damaged" the crops. The issue was whether the defendant was liable for trespass.Until the invention of more sophisticated security systems, thorny branches were often used as a defense against burglary, being strategically planted below windows or around the entire perimeter of a property.
Rule
Although the decision was divided, the majority held that if a person damages another's property there is a tort even if the action that brought such damages was itself lawful. As Pigot, J states, "And so if a man has a fish-pond in his manor and he empties the water out of the pond to take the fishes and the water floods my land, I shall have a good action, and yet the act was lawful."- One who voluntarily does an act which results in damages to another is responsible for the damages even if the act was lawful.