Hamilton v. Turner and Another

Factual and Procedural Background

A party holding a feu-right of property in a mineral district (the Plaintiff) brought an action against the superior of the land (the Defendant Superior) and the mineral tenant (the Defendant Tenants) for damages caused by injury to buildings on the feu due to underground mineral workings. The Plaintiff's feu-right was granted in 1856 by a predecessor of the Defendant Superior, who reserved mineral rights and agreed to pay damages caused by mineral working. The mineral tenant held a lease from the predecessor of the Defendant Superior dated 1854, obliging them to pay for damages caused by their operations and to indemnify the superior against claims arising from mineral working.

The Plaintiff alleged improper mineral working by the mineral tenants, resulting in subsidence and damage to buildings on the feu. The Lord Ordinary initially held the action relevant against the mineral tenants but dismissed it against the superior. Upon proof, the Lord Ordinary found the mineral tenants liable for damages of £500 but absolved the superior of liability. Both the Plaintiff and the mineral tenants reclaimed against this interlocutor.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the superior is liable to the feu-holder for damages caused by mineral workings beneath the feu, and if so, whether this liability arises ex contractu (from contract) or otherwise.
2. Whether the mineral tenants are liable to the feu-holder for damages caused by their mineral workings, and if so, whether this liability arises ex contractu or ex delicto (from tort).
3. The extent of the mineral tenants' duty of care in conducting mineral workings beneath surface buildings and whether they are liable for damages caused by subsidence to such buildings.
4. Whether the existence of buildings constructed after the mineral lease affects the mineral tenants' liability for damage caused by their workings.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Defendant Superior, as successor to the original granter of the feu, is contractually liable to pay for all damages caused by mineral workings beneath the feu.
• The mineral tenants are liable in tort for damages caused by improper mineral working that failed to leave sufficient support for the surface and buildings.
• The mineral tenants had a duty to exercise reasonable care, especially when working beneath buildings, and failed to take adequate precautions.

Defendant Superior's Arguments

• The superior is not liable for damages caused by the mineral tenants because the lease did not authorize working without leaving sufficient support for the surface.
• The superior's obligation was limited to ensuring tenants settled damages with the feu-holder, not direct liability for damages caused by tenants.

Defendant Tenants' Arguments

• The mineral tenants conducted their operations legally and according to the usual "longwall" system of working minerals.
• They owed no greater duty of care beneath buildings than elsewhere, and were not liable for damage to buildings constructed after the lease was granted.
• The lease did not impose contractual obligations to the feu-holder, so any liability must arise from fault, which was denied.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the contractual terms of the feu-disposition and the mineral lease to determine the liability of the parties. It found that the Defendant Superior, as successor to the original granter of the feu, was contractually liable (ex contractu) for damages caused by mineral workings beneath the feu. This liability arose from the superior's express obligation in the feu-disposition to pay for damages sustained by the feu-holder due to mineral working, regardless of fault.

Regarding the mineral tenants, the court held there was no contractual relationship (no privity) with the Plaintiff. Therefore, any liability to the Plaintiff must be based on delict (tort). The court found that the mineral tenants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in their mineral workings, particularly beneath buildings, and that they failed to take adequate precautions to prevent damage. The mineral tenants' argument that they were only bound to sustain the surface as it existed at the date of the lease, and owed no duty regarding buildings erected later, was rejected.

The court emphasized that the superior did not relinquish the right to use the surface by granting the mineral lease and that the mineral tenants were bound to take all reasonable precautions to avoid injuring buildings on the surface. The court found sufficient evidence of fault or carelessness by the mineral tenants in failing to prevent injury, thus establishing their liability ex delicto.

There was no joint liability between the superior and the mineral tenants, and questions of relief between them were reserved.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Defendant Superior is liable ex contractu to the Plaintiff for damages caused by mineral workings beneath the feu.

It also held that the mineral tenants are liable ex delicto to the Plaintiff for damages caused by their negligent mineral working that failed to leave sufficient support for surface buildings.

The decision imposes a contractual obligation on superiors to compensate feu-holders for mineral working damages, independent of fault, and a tortious duty on mineral tenants to exercise reasonable care to avoid damage to surface structures. The ruling clarifies that mineral leases do not exempt tenants from liability for damage caused by negligence, even where buildings are constructed after the lease. No joint liability was found, and questions of relief between defendants remain open. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond applying established principles of contract and delict in the context of mineral rights and surface property damage.