Gladwell v Steggall; 19 Jun 1839

References: 8 Scott 60, [1839] EngR 834, (1839) 5 Bing NC 733, (1839) 132 ER 1283
Links: Commonlii
The plaintiff was a girl of ten years of age claimed she had been negligently treated by the defendant surgeon and apothecary. She sued in an action ex delicto, alleging a breach of the contract under which they had been employed, though it was her father who had paid the bill.
A declaration in case stated that Plaintiff, an infant, had employed Defendant, a surgeon, to cure her, and then claimed damages for a misfeasance: Plea, that Plaintiff did not employ Defendant : Held, that it was immaterial by whom Defendant was employed ; or that, if material, Plaintiff’s submitting to Defendant’s treatment was sufficient proof of the allegation of employment by her.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd -v- Heller & Partners Ltd HL ([1964] AC 465, [1963] 2 All ER 575, UBC, Bailii, [1963] UKHL 4, [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 485, [1963] 3 WLR 101)
    The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .