The law of negligence states that a private owner is liable for damages occurred by his / her negligence in connection with his/her own property.  When a dangerous condition on an owner’s property causes injury to the adjoining owner, the adjoining owner can recover damages based on negligence.  The adjoining owner must prove that the owner failed to fulfill the duty to correct the danger.

In, Long v. Magnolia Hotel Co,[i] the Court held that an owner should use his land so as not to injure the legal rights of his neighbors.  An owner who maintains or permits the existence of something potentially dangerous to an adjoining property must take precautions that no injury there from befalls his neighbor.  The Court observed that, every owner must use his / her land in a reasonable manner with due regard to the rights and interests of others.  An owner who negligently does an act on his / her property is liable for the damages so caused.  The act may be lawful of itself but potentially injurious to adjoining property.  An imperfectly constructed building or building condemned by municipal authority is not a defense to an action for negligently injuring an adjoining building.  The failure of an owner to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to adjoining property from the fall of a dangerous wall or parts of it will make him/her liable in negligence.

An owner is held liable for negligence when an adjoining property is damaged due to a wall falling on the adjoining property and the owner knew that the wall was in a defective condition before the fall and failed to correct the defect.[ii]

A structure or wall in a dilapidated condition and one that threatens to fall upon and injure the adjoining premises is regarded as a continuing nuisance[iii].  In Hevel v. Stangier, [iv] the Court held that in the absence of a statute the jury should fix the time at which an owner of a hazardous structure becomes liable for a failure on his or her part to exercise reasonable care in causing the removal of the hazard.

[i] 227 Miss. 625 (Miss. 1956)

[ii] Huntsman v. Smith, 62 N.M. 457 (N.M. 1957)

[iii] Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kelley, 77 N.J. Eq. 129 (Ch. 1910)

[iv] 238 Ore. 44 (Or. 1964)