Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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.  














Negligence - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Huggett v Montgomery [1807] EngR 277; (1807) 2 Bos & Pul 446; (1807) 127 ER 702
1 Jun 1807


Negligence, Transport
If one ship run against another by the negligence of the pilot while the owner is on board, the remedy against the owner is an action on the case.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Collinson And Others v Larkins [1810] EngR 315; (1810) 3 Taunt 1; (1810) 128 ER 1
22 Jun 1810


Negligence
If a vessel is damaged by another running foul of it, and the jury find a verdict for the Plaintiff, the Court will not send the case to a new trial because there may be some ground to believe that the Plaintiff was negligent in navigating his vessel, as well as the Defendant.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Dixon v Bell (1816) 5 M & Sel 198
18 Jun 1816

Lord Ellenborough CJ, Bayley J
Negligence
The defendant had left a loaded gun at his lodgings and sent his servant, a mulatto girl aged about thirteen or fourteen, for the gun, asking the landlord to remove the priming and give it her. The landlord did remove the priming and gave it to the girl, who later levelled it at the plaintiff's small son, drew the trigger and injured the boy. Held: The law requires of persons having in their custody instruments of danger, that they should keep them with the utmost care The defendant was liable to damages in an action upon the case.
CASE. The plaintiff declares that the defendant was possessed of a gun, then being in a certain messuage [outbuilding], situate, &c.; and that he, well knowing the same to be loaded with powder and printing types, wrongfully and injuriously sent a female servant to the said messuage, to fetch away the gun so loaded, he well knowing that the said servant was too young, and an unfit and improper person to be sent for the gun, and to be entrusted with the care or custody of it; and which said servant afterwards, and while she was so sent and entrusted by the defendant, and had the custody of the said gun accordingly, carelessly and improperly shot off the same, at and into the face of the plaintiff's son and servant, and struck out his right eye and two of his teeth, whereby he became sick, &c., and was prevented from performing his lawful business, and the plaintiff was deprived of his service, and put to great expence in procuring his cure, &c. There was a second count, for taking such improper care of the gun, knowing that it was loaded, that the gun was afterwards discharged against the plaintiff's son, &c. Plea, not guilty. At the trial, before Lord Ellenborough C. J., at the last Middlesex sittings, the case was thus:
The plaintiff and defendant both lodged at the house of one Leman, where the defendant kept a gun loaded with types, in consequence of several robberies having been committed in the neighbourhood. The defendant left the house on the 10th of October, and sent a mulatto [p. 199:] girl, his servant, of the age of about thirteen or fourteen, for the gun, desiring Leman to give it her, and to take the priming out. Leman accordingly took out the priming, told the girl so, and delivered the gun to her. She put it down in the kitchen, resting on the butt, and, soon afterwards took it up again, and presented it, in play, at the plaintiff's son, a child between eight and nine, saying she would shoot him, and drew the trigger. The gun went off, and the consequences stated in the declaration ensued. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 100l.
The Attorney General moved for a new trial, on the ground that the defendant had used every precaution which he could be expected to use on such on occasion, and, therefore, was not chargeable with any culpable negligence.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. The defendant might and ought to have gone farther; it was incumbent on him, who, by charging the gun, had made it capable of doing mischief, to render it safe and innoxious. This might have been done by the discharge or drawing of the contents; and though it was the defendant's intention to prevent all mischief, and he expected that this would be effectuated by taking out the priming, the event has unfortunately proved, that the order to Leman was not sufficient; consequently, as by this want of care, the instrument was left in a state capable of doing mischief, the law will hold the defendant responsible. It is a hard case, undoubtedly; but I think the action is maintainable.
BAYLEY J. The gun ought to have been so left as to be out of all reach of doing harm. The mere removal of the priming left the chance of some grains of powder escaping through the touch-hole.
1 Citers


 
Jones v Boyce [1816] 1 Stark 493; [1816] EWHC KB J75
20 Dec 1816

Lord Ellenborough
Negligence
The plaintiff passenger, alarmed for his safety jumped from the defendant's carriage, and now claimed damages for negligence. Held: If the defendant crated a situation in which his passenger was properly so concerned for his own safety as to choose another dangerous course, the defendant was not excused by that choice: "It is for your consideration whether plaintiff's act was the measure of an unreasonably alarmed mind, or such as a reasonable and prudent mind would have adopted. If I place a man in such a situation that he must adopt a perilous alternatve, I am responsible for the consequences.'
[ Bailii ]
 
Ilott v Wilkes (1820) 3 B & Ald 304
1820


Crime, Negligence

1 Citers


 
Dartnall v Howard (1825) 4 B&C 345; 6 Dow & Ry KB 438; 3 LJOSKB 246; 107 ER 1088; 12 Digest (Rep 1) 44
1825


Negligence


 
Bird v Holbrook (1828) 4 Bing 628
1828


Negligence, Torts - Other

1 Citers


 
Vaughan v Menlove [1837] EngR 328; (1837) 7 Car & P 525; (1837) 173 ER 232 (A)
1837


Nuisance, Negligence

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Vaughan v Menlove [1837] EngR 424; (1837) 3 Bing NC 468; (1837) 132 ER 490
1837


Negligence, Nuisance
The defendant had been advised of the probable consequences of allowing a stack of damp hay, which he had erected without proper ventilation, to remain in this condition. Subsequently the hay spontaneously ignited damaging the plaintiff's house. At trial Patteson J directed the jury to consider whether the fire had been occasioned by "gross negligence" on the part of Menlove. The argument for Menlove on appeal was that the jury should have been asked to consider whether Menlove had "acted bona fide to the best of his judgment". The defence that he acted to the best of his judgment was rejected as he did not take the precautionary measures that common foresight and precaution would suggest.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gladwell v Steggall 8 Scott 60; [1839] EngR 834; (1839) 5 Bing NC 733; (1839) 132 ER 1283
19 Jun 1839


Negligence
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.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Lynch v Nurdin; 1841 - (1841) 1 QB 29; (1841) Arn & H 158; (1841) 113 ER 1041; [1841] EngR 52
 
Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M & W 109; 152 ER 402.
1842

Alderson B
Negligence
Owing to negligence in the construction of a carriage it broke down. A third party sought damages for injuries which he alleged were due to negligence in the work. Held: The doctrine of privity of contract precluded actions in tort by third parties arising from negligence by a party to a contract in carrying it out. He had no cause of action either in tort or arising out of contract. "The only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract; if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go fifty."
1 Citers



 
 Piggot v The Eastern Counties Railway Company; 2-Jun-1846 - [1846] EngR 734; (1846) 3 CB 229; (1846) 136 ER 92
 
Grote v Chester and Holyhead Ry (1848) 2 Ex 251
1848
CEC

Negligence
The defendants had constructed a bridge over the Dee on their railway and had licensed the use of the bridge to the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway to carry passengers over it, and had so negligently constructed the bridge that the plaintiff, a passenger of the last named railway, had been injured by the falling of the bridge. At the trial before Vaughan Williams J. the judge had directed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover if the bridge was not constructed with reasonable care and skill. On a motion for a new trial the Attorney-General (Sir John Jervis) contended that there was misdirection, for the defendants were only liable for negligence, and the jury might have understood that there was an absolute liability. Held: After consulting the trial judge as to his direction, the court refused the rule.
1 Citers


 
Eilzabeth Dakin, Administration Of William Dakin, Deccased, v Brown And Munt [1849] EngR 749; (1849) 8 CB 92; (1849) 137 ER 443
19 Jun 1849


Negligence
In case against engineers for so negligently constructing and erecting a machine, that it exploded, and killed the husband of the plaintiff, the defendants pleaded, that, at the time of the accident, the machine was unfit for use, by reason of the dampness of the brick-work in which it was set; that they so informed the deceased, and cautioned him not to use it; and that, by reason of the premises, the machine exploded, as in the declaration mentioned,-concluding with a verification :-Held, that the plea did not present a confession and avoidance of the whole cause of action,but was an informal traverse of a part only, and therefore bad.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.