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: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 52 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
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 ]
 
Thomas v Winchester (1852) 6 NY 697
1852


Negligence
(New York) A chemist carelessly issued poison in answer to a request for a harmless drug, and he was held responsible to a third party injured by his neglect.
1 Citers


 
Ellis v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co; Attorney-General v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co (1853) 2 E & B 767; [1853] EngR 221; (1852-1853) 3 De G M & G 304; (1853) 43 ER 119; [1853] EngR 919; (1853) 2 El & Bl 767; (1853) 118 ER 955
1853


Negligence, Utilities
The court considered a relator action: "Although the name of the Attorney-General is used, it is quite clear that he has never been consulted, and that any advantage from these litigations to the public is the last thing which those who have set it on foot have thought of."
[ Commonlii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781
1856

Baron Alderson
Negligence

1 Citers


 
Levy v Spyers [1856] 1F&F 3
1856


Negligence
“It is negligence where there are two ways of doing a thing, and one is clearly right, and the other is doubtful, to do it in the doubtful way”
1 Citers


 
Brass v Maitland (1856) 6 E & B 470
1856


Negligence
There is an implied warranty from a consignor to the carrier as to the non-dangerous nature of what is to be carried.
1 Citers


 
Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks [1856] EWHC Exch J65; (1856) 11 Exch 781; 156 ER 1047
6 Feb 1856
Exc
Alderson B
Utilities, Negligence
The plaintiff sought damages, alleging negligence by the defendants in maintaining their water pipes. His house had been flooded when a mains leaked. Held: Alderson B: "Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done. A reasonable man would act with reference to the average circumstances of the temperature in ordinary years."
[ Bailii ]
 
Tuff v Warman [1857] EngR 642; (1857) 2 CB NS 740; (1857) 140 ER 607
9 Jun 1857


Negligence, Transport
EngR In an action for an injury to the plaintiffs vessel in consequence of a collision with a vessel under the control of the defendant, there being conflicting evidence of negligence on the one side and on the other. The jury were told, that, if the negligence or default of the plaintiff was in any degree the direct or proximate cause of the damage, he was not entitled to recover, however great might have been the negligence of the defendant: but that, if the negligence of the plaintiff was only remotely connected with the accident, then the question was whether the defendant might by the exercise of ordinary care have avoided it. Held. A proper direction. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. e. 104, leaves the rule of law upon this subject as it was before ; the only effect of the 296th and 298th sections being, to bring the non-compliance with the Admiralty sailing regulations within the category of negligence.
Merchant Shipping Act 1854
[ Commonlii ]
 
Blackmore v Bristol and Exeter Ry. Co (1858) 8 E & B 1035
1858

Coleridge J
Negligence

1 Citers


 
Tuff v Warman [1858] EngR 165; (1858) 5 CB NS 573; (1858) 144 ER 231
1858


Transport, Negligence

[ Commonlii ]
 
Vaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company [1858] EngR 1160; (1858) 3 H & N 743; (1858) 157 ER 667
20 Nov 1858


Negligence
A wood adjoining the defendants’ railway was burnt by sparks from the locomotives. On several previous occasions it had been set on fire, and the Company had paid for the damage. Evidence was given that the defendants had done everything that was practicable to the locomotives to make them safe, but it was admitted that even with these precautions the locomotives had been the means of occasionally setting fire to the wood. The banks of the railway were covered with inflammable grass. The jury found the Company guilty of negligence. Held: First, that, assuming the fire to have been caused by lighted coals from the locomotives falling in the plaintiff’s wood, the defendants were liable. Secondly, that they were not excused by the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 & 9 Vict c. 20, s. 86 - Thirdly, that if the fire broke out on the defendants’ land and was communicated to the wood from the banks of thc railway, there was evidence to justify the verdict, and that the defendants were not protected by the 14 Geo 3, c 78, s. 84 -Fourthly, that it was no defence that the plaintiff had allowed his wood to become peculiarly liable to take fire by neglecting to clear away the dry grass and dead sticks.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Regina v Inhabitants of High Halden; 1859 - (1859) 1 F & F 678; 26 Digest (Repl) 383; [1860] EngR 93; (1860) 175 ER 903
 
Vaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company [1860] EngR 749; (1860) 5 H & N 679; (1860) 157 ER 1351
12 May 1860


Negligence
A railway Company, authorized by the legislature to use locomotive engines, is not responsible for damage from fire occasioned by sparks emitted from an engine travelling on their railway, provided they have taken every precaution in their power and adopted every means which science can suggest to prevent injury from fire, and are not guilty of negligence in the management of the engine So held in the Exchequer Chamber (reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer).
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Pickard v Smith [1861] EngR 71; (1861) 10 CB NS 470; (1861) 142 ER 535
1861

Williams J
Vicarious Liability, Negligence
Refreshment rooms and a coal-cellar at a railway station were let by the company to one S, the opening for putting coals into the cellar being on the arrival platform. A train coming in whilst the servants of a cod-merchant mere shooting coals into the cellar for S., the plaintiff, a passenger, whilst passing (as the jury found) in the usual way out of the station, without any fault of his own, fell into the cellar opening, which the coal-merchant's servants had negligently left insufficiently guarded. Held: S, the occupier of the refreshment-rooms and cellar, was responsible for this negligence. And semble, per Williams, J, that the railway company also would be liable, but not the coal-merchant.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Farrant v Barnes (1862) 11 CB (NS) 553
1862


Transport, Negligence
A duty of care from a consignor to a carrier's servant that the goods to be transported can be safely carried, is owed independently of any contract.
1 Citers


 
Fish v Kelly (1864) 17 CBNS 194; 144 ER 78; 42 Digest 108
1864


Negligence
Mere casual observations are not to be used to found a duty of care.
1 Citers


 
Normile v Braby [1866] EngR 12; (1866) 4 F & F 962; (1866) 176 ER 867
1866


Negligence

[ Commonlii ]
 
Indermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274; LR 2 CP 311
1866
QBD
Willes J
Negligence
The court set out an occupier of land's duty towards his invitees: "And, with respect to such a visitor at least, we consider it settled law, that he, using reasonable care on his part for his own safety, is entitled to expect that the occupier shall on his part use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger, which he knows or ought to know; and that, where there is evidence of neglect, the question whether such reasonable care has been taken, by notice, lighting, guarding, or otherwise, and whether there was contributory negligence in the sufferer, must be determined by a jury as a matter of fact." The court premised the existence of the occupier's duty on the absence of any contributory negligence on the part of the invitee.
1 Citers


 
'The Mersey Docks And Harbour Board' Trustees v William Gibbs And Others; The Mersey Docks And Harbour Board' Trustees v Pierce, W Penhallow, And Others [1866] EngR 174; (1864-66) 11 HLC 686; (1866) 11 ER 1500
30 Jun 1866


Negligence

[ Commonlii ]
 
Skelton v London and North Western Ry Co (1867) LR 2 CP 631; [1867] 16 LT 563; [1867] 15 WR 295
1867
CCP
Willes J
Negligence
The defendant's railway lines crossed a public footpath. The lines were bounded by gates which swung to, as required by law, but were not as usual also fastened. The deceased stopped as one train passed, but then stepped out in front of another and was killed. Held: The action in negligence failed. The deceased had so contributed to his own that the company was not responsible by virtue of the failure to fasten the gate. Willes J said: "Actionable negligence must consist in the breach of some duty . . If a person undertakes to perform a voluntary act, he is liable if he performs it improperly, but not if he neglects to perform it. Such is the result of the decision in Coggs v Bernard."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Smith v London and St Katharine Docks Co [1868] LR 3 CP 326
1868


Negligence
The plaintiff sought damages after being injuring crossing a gangway onto a ship. Held: The defendant had invited the plaintiff to the property and must have known the gangway would be used for this purpose.
1 Citers


 
Collis v Selden (1868) L R 3 C P 495
1868

Willes J
Negligence
The defendant installed a chandelier in a public house. It fell and injured the plaintiff. Held: There was nothing to say that the defendant had any knowledge that the plaintiff, as opposed to members of the public in general, would enter the public house. He was not liable.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company (1869-70) LR 5 CP 98
1869

Bovill CJ
Negligence
Workmen, employed by the defendant railway company to cut the grass and trim hedges bordering the railway, placed the trimmings in heaps near the line, and allowed them to remain there for fourteen days, during very hot weather in the month of August. Fire from a passing engine ignited one of these heaps, and burned the hedge, and was carried by a high wind across a stubblefield and a public road, and burned the plaintiff's goods in a cottage about 200 yards away. The question was whether there was evidence of negligence to go before the jury. No one argued that the railway company was strictly liable. Held: Bovill CJ said: "I agree that the mere circumstance of the fire being caused by an engine of the company, is not enough to give a cause of action against them; but the plaintiff must shew some breach of duty on their part which occasioned the injury he complains of."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 George v Skivington; 1869 - (1869) L R 5 Ex 1; 39 LJ Ex 8; 21 LT 495
 
Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company (1870-71) LR 6 CP 14
1870


Negligence
Blackburn J said: "I take it that, since the case of Vaughan v Taff Vale Ry Co, which was expressly affirmed in Brand v Hammersmith Ry Co, it is clear that when a railway company is authorized by their Act of parliament to run engines on their line, and that cannot be done without their emitting sparks, the company are not responsible for injuries arising therefrom, unless there is some evidence of negligence on their part."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Trefftz And Son v Antonio Canelli [1872] EngR 27; (1872) 9 Moo PC NS 22; (1872) 17 ER 422
14 Jun 1872
PC

Negligence, Contract, Commonwealth
C, a Merchant domiciled at Alexandria, being indebted to the Appellants, Merchants carrying on business at Leipsic, for the purpose of settling litigation between them, deposited with the Respondent (an English Merchant resident at Alexandria) certain Rills drawn in his favour as security for the Appellants' debt; the Respondent by the agreement between C and ths Appellants constituting himself a voluntary depositee of them, and undertaking to be responsible for them to the Appellants ''until the effective encashment of them, which remains entrusted to C." Held: The Respondent was not guilty of a breach of duty under this agreement in allowing C to take the Bills when due, for encashment at his discretion, and was not bound to see that C handed over the money to the Appellants.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Powell v Fall (1879-80) LR 5 QBD 597; 49 LJQB 428; (1880) 5 QBD 597
1879

Mellor J
Negligence
The defendant drove a steam powered traction engine on the highway. Sparks from the engine set fire to the plaintiff's haystack. The court was asked: "whether the owner of a locomotive engine propelled by steam along a public highway using a fire for the purpose of generating the steam required to propel such engine . . and was managed and conducted with all reasonable care and without negligence, was liable to the plaintiffs for injury occasioning damage to a rick of hay standing on land adjoining the highway by sparks proceeding from such engine and firing the hay." Held: The use on a public highway of a traction engine emitting sparks was held to give rise to strict liability.
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 86
1 Citers


 
Powell v Fall (1880) 5 QBD 597
1880
CA
Bramwell LJ
Negligence
The defendant had caused a fire when sparks flew from his steam traction engine as he drove along the highway. He now appealed against a judgemnt that he was liable. He conceded that an action lay at common law. Held: The decision was upheld. There was no statutory exemption.
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 86
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hughes v Percival (1883) 8 App Cas 443; [1881-85] All ER 44; (1883) 8 AC 443
1883

Lord Blackburn
Agency, Vicarious Liability, Negligence
The parties were neighbouring householders with a party wall. A builder working in the defendant's house negligently cut into the party wall, causing the partial collapse of both the defendant's house and the Plaintiff's house next-door. Held: Lord Blackburn said: "The first point to be considered is what was the relation in which the defendant stood to the plaintiff. It was admitted that they were owners of adjoining houses between which was a party-wall the property of both. The defendant pulled down his house and had it rebuilt on a plan which involved in it the tying together of the new building and the party-wall which was between the plaintiff's house and the defendant's, so that if one fell the other would be damaged. The defendant had a right so to utilize the party-wall, for it was his property as well as the plaintiff's; a stranger would not have had such a right. But I think the law cast upon the defendant, when exercising this right, a duty towards the plaintiff. I do not think that duty went so far as to require him absolutely to provide that no damage should come to the plaintiff's wall from the use he thus made of it, but I think that the duty went as far as to require him to see that reasonable skill and care were exercised in those operations which involved a use of the party-wall, exposing it to this risk. If such a duty was cast upon the defendant he could not get rid of responsibility by delegating the performance of it to a third person. He was at liberty to employ such a third person to fulfil the duty which the law cast on himself, and, if they so agreed together, to take an indemnity to himself in case mischief came from that person not fulfilling the duty which the law cast upon the defendant; but the defendant still remained subject to that duty, and liable for the consequences if it was not fulfilled. This is the law I think clearly laid down in Pickard v Smith 10 CB (NS) 470, and finally in (1881) Dalton v Angus 6 App Cas 740. But in all the cases on the subject there was a duty cast by law on the party who was held liable."
1 Citers


 
Cunnington v Great Northern Ry. Co (1883) 49 LT 392
1883

Brett MR
Negligence

1 Citers


 
Morran v Waddell (1883) 11 R 44
1883


Negligence

1 Citers



 
 Speight v Gaunt; CA 20-Jan-1883 - (1882) 22 Ch D 727; [1883] EWCA Civ 1
 
Heaven v Pender, Trading As West India Graving Dock Company (1883) 11 QBD 503; 52 LJQB 702; 49 LT 357; 47 JP 709
30 Jul 1883
CA
Brett MR, Cotton LJ, Bowen LJ
Negligence
The plaintiff was a painter. His employer engaged to repaint a ship, and the defendant erected staging to support the work. The staging collapsed because one of the ropes was singed and weakened, injuring the plaintiff. Held: The defendant had invited the plaintiff on to the land, and knew he would be using the staging. the categories of negligence are never closed
(Obiter) "The proposition which these recognized cases suggest, and which is, therefore, to be deduced from them, is that whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that every one of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognize that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger . . Let us apply this proposition to the case of one person supplying goods or machinery, or instruments or utensils, or the like, for the purpose of their being used by another person, but with whom there is no contract as to the supply. The proposition will stand thus: whenever one person supplies goods, or machinery or the like, for the purpose of their being used by another person under such circumstances that everyone of ordinary sense would, if he thought, recognize at once that unless he used ordinary care and skill with regard to the condition of the thing supplied or the mode of supplying it, there will be danger of injury to the person or property of him for whose use the thing is supplied, and who is to use it, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill as to the condition or manner of supplying such thing. And for a neglect of such ordinary care or skill whereby injury happens a legal liability arises to be enforced by an action for negligence. This includes the case of goods, etc., supplied to be used immediately by a particular person or persons or one of a class of persons, where it would be obvious to the person supplying, if he thought, that the goods would in all probability be used at once by such persons before a reasonable opportunity for discovering any defect which might exist, and where the thing supplied would be of such a nature that a neglect of ordinary care or skill as to its condition or the manner of supplying it would probably cause danger to the person or property of the person for whose use it was supplied, and who was about to use it. It would exclude a case in which the goods are supplied under circumstances in which it would be a chance by whom they would be used or whether they would be used or not, or whether they would be used before there would probably be means of observing any defect, or where the goods would be of such a nature that a want of care or skill as to their condition or the manner of supplying them would not probably produce danger of injury to person or property. The cases of vendor and purchaser and lender and hirer under contract need not be considered, as the liability arises under the contract, and not merely as a duty imposed by law, though it may not be useless to observe that it seems difficult to import the implied obligation into the contract except in cases in which if there were no contract between the parties the law would according to the rule above stated imply the duty."
Cotton LJ said: "In declining to concur in laying down the principle enunciated by the Master of the Rolls, I in no way intimate any doubt as to the principle that anyone who leaves a dangerous instrument, as a gun, in such a way as to cause danger, or who without due warning supplies to others for use an instrument or thing which to his knowledge, from its construction or otherwise, is in such a condition as to cause danger, not necessarily incident to the use of such an instrument, or thing, is liable for injury caused to others by reason of his negligent act."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Speight v Gaunt; HL 26-Nov-1883 - (1883) 9 App Cas 1; [1883] UKHL 1; (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 1
 
Elliott v Hall (1885) 15 QBD 315
1885
QBD
Grove and AL Smith JJ
Negligence
The defendants, colliery owners, consigned coal to the plaintiff's employers, coal merchants, in a truck hired by the defendants from a wagon company. The plaintiff was injured in the course of unloading the coal by reason of the defective condition of the truck. Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover on the ground of the defendants' breach of duty to see that the truck was not in a dangerous condition.
1 Citers



 
 Wakelin v London and South Western Railway Co; HL 1886 - (1886) 12 App Cas 41

 
 Thomas v Quartermaine; CA 1887 - (1887) 18 QBD 685
 
Yarmouth v France [1887] 19 QB D 647; 57 LJQB 7 (QBD)
11 Aug 1887
CA
Lord Esher MR, Lindley LJ, and Lopes LJ (dissenting)
Employment, Negligence
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him. Held. For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, the horse was plant in the employer's business and its character was a defect in that plant. "plant" includes whatever apparatus or instruments are used by a business man in carrying on his business. The employer was liable in negligence, and "The maxim Volenti non fit injuria was not wanted as between master and servant. It was only wanted, if at all, where no such relation as that of master and servant existed." Where the plaintiff knew of a defect: "mere knowledge of the danger will not do: there must be an assent on the part of the workman to accept the risk, with a full appreciation of its extent, to bring the workman within the maxim Volenti non fit injuria. If so, that is a question of fact."
Lord Esher MR said: "I detest the attempt to fetter the law by maxims. They are almost invariably misleading; they are for the most part so large and general in their language that they always include something which really is not intended to be included in them."
Employers' Liability Act 1880 10
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ross v Keith (1888) 16 R 86
1888


Scotland, Negligence

1 Citers


 
Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas (1888) 13 App Cas 222; [1888] UKPC 3
21 Jan 1888
PC

Negligence, Damages, Commonwealth
(Victoria) The appellant's gatekeeper had negligently invited the plaintiffs to cross a railway line as a train approached. There was no collision, but the plaintiff sought damages for physical and mental injuries from shock. Held: The defendant's appeal on liability succeeded. It was difficult, if not impossible, to recover damages for "illness which was the effect of shock caused by fright". Such injury was regarded as being too remote a head of damages in an action for negligence. There would be evidential difficulty in deciding upon the causes of psychiatric symptoms. Mere sudden terror unaccompanied by actual physical injury could not in such circumstances be considered a consequence which in the ordinary course would flow from the negligence of the gate keeper.
"Damages arising from mere sudden terror unaccompanied by any actual physical injury, but occasioning a nervous or mental shock, cannot under such circumstances, their Lordships think, be considered a consequence which, in the ordinary course of things, would flow from the negligence of the gate-keeper. If it were held that they can, it appears to their Lordships that it would be extending the liability for negligence much beyond what that liability has hitherto been held to be."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Prentice v Assets Co Ltd (1889) 17 R 484
1889


Scotland, Negligence

1 Citers


 
Scholes v Brook (1891) 64 LT 674
1891


Negligence, Damages
Counsel for the appellant had submitted that the damages ought to be the difference between the value of the estate as stated by the valuers and the real value at that time. This submission was rejected. Held: The argument was rightly rejected.
1 Citers



 
 Low v Bouverie; CA 1891 - [1891] 3 Ch 82
 
Cowley v Newmarket Local Board [1892] AC 345
1892
HL
Lord Halsbury
Nuisance, Negligence
No action in tort lay against highway authorities for a failure to repair a highway. They were no more liable than were the local inhabitants.
Lord Halsbury said: "We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute, and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention."
1 Citers



 
 Ultzen v Nicols; 1894 - [1894] 1 QB 92; (1894) 63 LJ QB 829; (1894) 70 LT 140; (1894) 10 TLR 25; (1894) 28 Sol Jo 26; (1894) 10 R 13 DC
 
Saunders v Holborn District Board of Works [1895] 1 QB 6
1895
QBD
Charles J, Mathew J
Nuisance, Negligence
Mr Saunders was injured when he slipped on an icy pavement, and claimed damages. Held: A breach of the duty to remove snow did not give rise to a private law cause of action, any more than a breach of the duty to maintain the highway. Before the 1891 Act (Charles J) "it was not the duty of the sanitary authority to take any steps to clear the streets of ice and snow." It was a duty, which "formerly rested upon the householders." (Mathew J)
1 Citers


 
Meux v Great Eastern Railway Co [1895] 2 QB 387
1895


Negligence, Vicarious Liability
The plaintiff sought damages from the railway company for carelessly damaging his goods even though he did not himself have a contract with the company. Held: A duty was owed by the railway company towards the goods owner, applying cases which had held that a railway company owed a duty of care towards passengers injured by the carelessness of that company's employee even though the passenger had bought his ticket from another company. No distinction was drawn between an employee injuring the plaintiff and damaging or losing his property.
1 Citers



 
 Hawkins v Smith; QBD 1896 - (1896) 12 Times LR 532
 
Caledonian Ry Co v Mulholland or Warwick [1898] AC 216
1898
HL
Lord Shand
Negligence, Transport
The appellant company were held not liable for injuries caused by a defective brake on a coal wagon conveyed by the railway company to a point in the transit where their contract ended, and where the wagons were taken over for haulage for the last part of the journey by a second railway company, on which part the accident happened. It was held that the first railway company were under no duty to the injured workmen to examine the wagon for defects at the end of their contractual haulage. There was ample opportunity for inspection by the second railway company. The relations were not proximate.
The court discussed responsibility for a thing dangerous in itself, as 'an instrument noxious or dangerous in itself which might produce an accident from the mere handling of it.'
1 Citers


 
Williams v Birmingham Battery and Metal Co [1899] 2 QB 338
1899


Negligence
The burden of proof for establishing the defence of volenti non fit injuria lies on the defendant.
1 Citers


 
Holliday v National Telephone Company [1899] 2 QB 392
1899
CA
A L Smith LJ
Negligence, Vicarious Liability
A passer-by on the highway was injured through the negligence of an independent contractor. Held: The employer was liable.
A L Smith LJ said: "The defence is that the defendants are not liable in respect of the injury sustained by the plaintiff, because it was occasioned by the negligence of an independent contractor for whom they are not responsible. In my opinion, since the decision of the House of Lords in Hughes v. Percival (1883) 8 App. Cas. 443, and that of the Privy Council in Black v. Christchurch Finance Co. [1894] A C 48, it is very difficult for a person who is engaged in the execution of dangerous works near a highway to avoid liability by saying that he has employed an independent contractor, because it is the duty of a person who is causing such works to be executed to see that they are properly carried out so as not to occasion any damage to persons passing by on the highway."
1 Citers


 
Burrows v Rhodes [1899] 1 QB 816
1899

Kennedy J
Negligence, Torts - Other
The plaintiff was induced to enlist in the Jameson Raid of 1895, contrary to section 11 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, by the defendants' fraudulent representation that it had the sanction of the Crown (which would have made it lawful). Kennedy J held that no claim for damages could be founded on an act "if the act is manifestly unlawful or the doer of it knows it to be unlawful as constituting either a civil wrong or a criminal offence."
Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 11
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.