National Law University, Orissa

Course: Legal Method

Doctrine of Precedent:
02 Wambaughs Test
Abhik Majumdar

Wambaugh's Test

Postulates that the ratio is to be found in

propositions enunciated in the judgment
Based on propositions, unlike Goodhart's test
Seeks to identify the relevant proposition in
the following manner if reversing the
proposition reverses the court's conclusion,
then it is the right proposition, i.e. Ratio
If reversing the proposition does not affect the
conclusion, then it amounts to obiter dicta

First frame carefully the supposed proposition of law

Let him then insert into the proposition a word reversing its
meaning
Let him then inquire whether, if the court had conceived this
new proposition to be good, and had had it in mind, the
decision could have been the same.
If the answer be affirmative, then, however excellent the
original proposition may be, the case is not a precedent for
that proposition.
[B]ut if the answer be negative the case is a precedent for the
original proposition and possibly for other propositions also.
i.e. A case may have more than
one rationes decidendi

Proposition

A statement of the subject of an argument or a

discourse
A statement in which something is affirmed or
denied, so that it can be characterized as either true
or false.

It is found that the defendants personally were free from all

blame, but that, in fact, proper care and skill was not used by
the persons employed by them to provide for the sufficiency of
the reservoir with reference to these shafts.
(From judgment of Blackburn, J in Rylands v. Fletcher)

This is not a proposition

It only relates some facts.

Even if we rephrase the above paragraph:

It is a truth thatthat the defendants personally were

free from all blame . .

. . . it will amount to a proposition of fact

Wambaughs test requires propositions of law

Rylands v. Fletcher
per Blackburn, J. (Court of Exchequer Chamber):
We think that the true rule of law is that the person who,
for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and
keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes,
must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he
is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape.

per Blackburn, J. (Court of Exchequer Chamber):

We think that the true rule of law is that the person who,
for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and
keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes,
need not keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so,
he is not prima facie answerable for all the damage which
is the natural consequence of its escape.

Other Propositions
The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the
escaped cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by
the water from his neighbour's reservoir, or whose cellar is
invaded by the filth of his neighbour's privy, or whose
habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome
vapours of his neighbour's alkali works, is damnified without
any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that
the neighbour who has brought something on his own
property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so
long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows
will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be,
obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does
not succeed in confining it to his own property.

Other Propositions

The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the

escaped cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by
the water from his neighbour's reservoir, or whose cellar is
invaded by the filth of his neighbour's privy, or whose
habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome
vapours of his neighbour's alkali works, is damnified without
any fault of his own
It seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour who has
brought something on his own property which was not
naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to
his own property, but which he knows will be mischievous if it
gets on his neighbour's, should be obliged to make good the
damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to
his own property.

Reversing the first proposition:

The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the
escaped cattle of his neighbour, or whose cellar is invaded by
the filth of his neighbour's privy, or whose habitation is made
unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his
neighbour's alkali works, is not damnified without any fault of
his own

Does this affect the judgment?

No, because based on hypothetical facts,
facts that do not concern the present case

Reversing the second proposition:

The neighbour who has brought something on his own
property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so
long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows
will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should not be
obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does
not succeed in confining it to his own property.

This does reverse the conclusion of the court,

therfore can be treated as ratio
The question is, then which is the true ratio?

The person who, for his own purposes, brings on his

land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril
(per Blackburn, J - narrow)

The neighbour who has brought something on his own

property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so
long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows
will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be,
obliged to make good the damage (if it escapes)
(per Blackburn, J - wider)

If the defendants . . . had desired to use [the land] for any

purpose which I may term a non-natural use . . . , for the
purpose of introducing water, either above or below
ground, in quantities and in a manner not the result of
any work or operation on or under the land, and if in
consequence of their doing so, or in consequence of any
imperfection in the mode of their doing so, the water
came to escape and to pass off into the close of the
plaintiff, then it appears to me that that which the
defendants were doing they were doing at their own peril
(per Lord Cairns, LC partly wider, partly narrower)

Person

For his own use

Brings, collects and keeps

Anything likely to cause mischief if it escapes

Keeps it at his peril

In case of escape, is liable for all the natural

consequences of its escape

Regardless or not whether he has been

negligent