What is the ratio in Goldman v Hargrave?

A landowner has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent natural hazards on their property from causing damage to neighbouring properties, measured against their particular circumstances and resources.

What did the court decide in Goldman v Hargrave?

The Privy Council held Hargrave liable for fire damage to his neighbour's property because he failed to properly extinguish a lightning-struck tree on his land.

Why is Goldman v Hargrave important for tort law?

It established a new category of liability for natural hazards, creating positive duties for landowners and bridging the gap between traditional nuisance and negligence principles.

What is the ratio in Goldman v Hargrave?

A landowner has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent natural hazards on their property from causing damage to neighbouring properties, measured against their particular circumstances and resources.

What did the court decide in Goldman v Hargrave?

The Privy Council held Hargrave liable for fire damage to his neighbour's property because he failed to properly extinguish a lightning-struck tree on his land.

Why is Goldman v Hargrave important for tort law?

It established a new category of liability for natural hazards, creating positive duties for landowners and bridging the gap between traditional nuisance and negligence principles.

Tort1 min read

Goldman v Hargrave

[1967] 1 AC 645Privy Council1967

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Tort cases →

“Landowners liable for natural nuisances if reasonable steps could prevent neighbour damage.”

Facts

Lightning struck a tree on Hargrave's land. Rather than fully extinguishing the fire, he allowed it to burn out, believing it would die naturally. Strong winds revived the fire, which spread to Goldman's neighbouring property causing damage.

Issues

Whether a landowner owes a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimise damage to neighbouring property from natural hazards occurring on their land.

Held

The Privy Council held that Hargrave was liable. A landowner has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent natural hazards on their property from causing damage to neighbours.

Significance

This case fundamentally changed English tort law by establishing positive duties for landowners regarding natural hazards. It bridged the gap between nuisance and negligence, creating a new category of liability that has been influential in environmental and property law.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Goldman v Hargrave. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 (PC)

tortnuisancenegligenceproperty lawenvironmental law

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Tort cases

Jaqueline Casey & Ors v Environment Agency

[2026] EWHC 178 (KB)

Lepani Secake & Ors v Shared Services Connected Ltd

[2026] EWHC 1022 (KB)

Salford City Council v Fortis Developments Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 702

Truter v Secretary of State for Justice

[2026] EWHC KB 825

CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2026] UKSC 5

Bromcom Computers Plc v Arbor Education Partners Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 379

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.