swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Negligence - From: 1200 To: 1799
This page lists 6 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
ÂCoggs v Bernard (1703) 1 Sm LC (13th Ed) 175; [1703] 1 Salk 26; [1703] 1 Com 133; [1703] Holt KB 13; [1703] 2 Ld Raym 909; [1703] 3 Salk 11; [1703] 92 ER 107; [1703] 36 Digest (Rep 1) 32
1703
Lord Holt CJ, Powell J
Negligence, Agency
The defendant had care of the plaintiff's cask of brandy. He broke the cask and spilt the brandy. Held: A bailment can exist notwithstanding that it is gratuitous, i.e. without consideration passing from the bailor to the bailee. The declaration that defendant was not a common porter and had been given nothing for his pains, was good, though there was no consideration. Gould J said: 'The reason for the action is, the particular trust reposed in the defendant, to which he has concurred by his assumption, and in the executing which he has miscarried by his neglect.' The historical approach of the common law to the question of negligence found its inspiration in Roman law concepts, as in the case in the law of bailment. As to the setting up of a nominal contractual obligation to obviate difficulties in negligence: 'Secondly it is objected, that there is no consideration to ground this promise upon, and therefore the undertakings is but nudum pactum. But to this I answer, that the owner's trusting him with the goods is a sufficient consideration to oblige him to careful management. Indeed if the agreement had been executory, to carry these brandies from one place to the other such a day, the defendant had not been bound to carry them. But this is a different case, for assumpsit does not only signify a future agreement, but in such a case as this, it signifies an actual entry upon the thing, and taking the trust upon himself. And if a man will do that, and miscarries in the performance of his trust, an action will lie against him for that, though nobody would have compelled him to do the thing.'
Holt CJ said that there were six classes of bailment.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Â
Mitchil v Alestree [1726] EngR 590; (1726) 1 Vent 295; (1726) 86 ER 190 (B)
1726
Twisden, Wylde JJ
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Animals
In an action upon the case brought against the defendant, for that he did ride an horse into a place called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, (a place much frequented by the King’s subjects, and unapt for such purposes) for the breaking and taming of him, and that the horse was so unruly, that he broke from the defendant, and ran over the plaintiff, and grievously hurt him, to his damages, &C.
Upon not guilty pleaded, and a verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved by Simpson in arrest of judgment, that here is no cause of action: for it appears by the declaration, that the mischief which happened was against the defendant’s will, and so damnum absque injuria; and then not shewn what right the King’s subjects had to walk there; and if a man digs a pit in a common into which one that has no right to come there, falls in, no action lies in such case.
Curia contra, It was the defendant’s fault, to bring a wild horse into such a place where mischief might probably be done, by reason of the concourse of people. Lately, in this Court an action was brought against a butcher, who had made an ox run from his stall and gored the plaintiff; and this was alledged in the declaration to be in default of penning of him.
Wylde said: "If a man hath an unruly horse in his stable, and leaves open the stable-door, whereby the horse goes forth and does mischief; an action lies against the master."
Twisden: "If one hath kept a tame fox, which gets loose and grows wild, he that kept him before shall not answer for the damage the fox doth after he hath lost him, and he hath resumed his wild nature."
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Â
 Scott v Shepherd; 1773 - (1773) 3 Wils 403; [1773] 2 Wm Bl 892; (1773) 95 ER 1124
Â
Shiells v Blackburne (1789) 1 HB1 158; 126 ER 94
1789
Lord Loughborough, Heath L
Negligence
A merchant agreed without taking any reward to enter a parcel of goods of another, along with his own at the Customs House for export. He negligently entered the goods under the wrong denomination, and both parcels were seized. Held: The plaintiff's action failed. Nevertheless, '. . . Where a bailee undertakes to perform a gratuitous act, from which the bailor alone is to receive benefit, there the bailee is only liable for gross negligence; but if a man gratuitously undertakes to do a thing to the best of his skill, where his situation or profession is such as to imply skill, an omission of that skill is imputable to him as gross negligence. If in this case a ship-broker or a clerk in the Custom-House, had undertaken to enter the goods, a wromh entry would in them be gross negligence, because their situation and employment necessarilty imply a competent degree of knowledge in making such entries.' (Lord Loughborough) '. . . The surgeon would also be liable for such negligence, if he undertook gratis to attend a sick person, because his situation implies skill in surgery; but if the patient applies to a man of a different employment or occupation for his gratuitous assistance, who either does not exert all his skill, or administers remedies to the best of his ability, such a person is not liable.' (Heath L)
1 Citers
Â
Anonymous [1792] EngR 70; (1792) 1 Ld Raym 739; (1792) 91 ER 1394 (C)
1792
Negligence
The servants of a carman run over a boy in the streets, and maimed him, by negligence; and an action was brought against the master and the plaintiff reoovered. The servants of A. with his cart run against the cart of B. in which there was a pipe of wine, viz. sack, and overturned it, whereby the sack was spoiled, and run into the street; an action was brought against the master, and held good by Holt Chief Justice at Guildhall. Ex relatione m'ri Place
[ Commonlii ]
Â
 Wilkinson v Coverdale; 1793 - (1793) 1 Esp 74; [1801] EngR 101; (1793, 1796, 1801) 1 Esp 75; (1801) 170 ER 284 (B)
Â
