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.  














Personal Injury - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Longmeid v Holliday (1851) 6 Ex 761; [1851] EngR 583; (1851) 6 Exch 761; (1851) 155 ER 752
1851

Parke B
Torts - Other, Personal Injury
A defective lamp was sold to a man whose wife was injured by its explosion. The seller of the lamp, against whom the action was brought, was not the manufacturer. Held: "It would be going much too far to say, that so much care is required in the ordinary intercourse of life between one individual and another, that, if a machine not in its nature dangerous, . . but which might become so by a latent defect entirely unknown, although discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care, should be lent or given by one person, even by the person who manufactured it, to another, the former should be answerable to the latter for a subsequent damage accruing by the use of it." The seller had made no fraudulent misstatement.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Mitchell And His Wife, v Chrassweller and Another; 27-Jan-1853 - [1853] EngR 174; (1853) 13 CB 237; (1853) 138 ER 1189
 
Wootton v Dawkins [1857] EngR 408; (1857) 2 CB NS 412; (1857) 140 ER 477
18 Apr 1857


Personal Injury, Torts - Other
The plaintiff entered the defendant’s garden at night, and without his permission, to search for a stray fowl, and, whilst looking closely into some bushes, he came in contact with a wire, which caused something to explode with a loud noise, knocking him down and slightly injuring his face and eyes: Held, that the defendant was not liable for this injuryt common law, nor, in the absence of evidence that it was caused by a spring-gun or other engine “calculated to inflict grievous bodily harm,” under the statute 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 18, s. I.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Jane Birkett, Executrix Of John Birkett, Deceased v The Whitehaven Junction Railway Company [1859] EngR 649; (1859) 4 H & N 730; (1859) 157 ER 1029
31 May 1859


Personal Injury

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Limpus v The London General Omnibus Company; 1861 - [1861] EngR 53; (1861) 2 F & F 640; (1861) 175 ER 1221
 
Lynch v Knight (1861) 9 HLC 577; [1861] EngR 822; (1861) 11 ER 854
17 Jul 1861
HL
Lord Wensleydale
Damages, Personal Injury
Lord Wensleydale said: "Mental pain or anxiety the law cannot value, and does not pretend to redress, when the unlawful act complained of causes that alone; though where material damage occurs, and is connected with it, it is impossible a jury, in estimating it, should altogether overlook the feelings of the party interested."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bolch v Smith [1862] EngR 369; (1862) 7 H & N 736; (1862) 158 ER 666
30 Jan 1862


Health and Safety, Personal Injury

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Limpus v London General Omnibus Company; CExC 23-Jun-1862 - (1862) 1 H&C 526; [1862] EngR 839; (1862) 1 H & C 526; (1862) 158 ER 993
 
Read v Great Eastern Railway Company [1867-78] LR 3 QB 555
1868

Blackburn J, Lush J
Personal Injury, Wills and Probate
A railway passenger was injured; he sued and was awarded damages. He died later from injury on the accident. Held: The widow could not bring an action for loss of dependency under section 1 of the 1846 Act.
Lush J said that the statute overcame the old rule that a person's action ended with his death. It provided a different mode of assessing damages but did not give a fresh cause of action.
Blackburn J said: "Before that statute, the person who received a personal injury and survived its consequences, could bring an action and recover damages for the injury; but if he died from its effects, then no action could be brought. To meet this state of the law, the statute was passed." and "Here, the party injured could not 'maintain an action in respect thereof' because he had already received satisfaction." Section 2 regulated the amount of damages and provided for apportionment in a manner different from that which would have been awarded to a man in his lifetime. He continued: "This section may provide a new principle as to the assessment of damages but it does not give any new right of action.
The intention of the enactment was that the death of the person injured should not free the wrongdoer from an action and in those cases where the person injured could maintain an action, his personal representatives might sue."
Fatal Accidents Act 1846 1 2
1 Citers


 
Foulkes v Metropolitan District Railway Co (1880) 5 CPD 157
1880


Personal Injury, Contract
The court considered the liability of a railway company where the plaintiff had bought his ticket from one railway company, but claimed liability from another which had undertaken responsibility for part of the services to be rendered to the plaintiff under the contract evidenced by the ticket.
1 Citers


 
Haigh v Royal Mail Steampacket Co Ltd [1883] 52 LJ QB 640
1883
CA
Brett MR
Damages, Personal Injury
“‘personal injury’ is not ‘loss’ because a limb may be broken without being lost. The word ‘injury’ would certainly have been more apt, but the word ‘damage’ can certainly mean personal injury”.
1 Citers


 
Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141
1884
CA
Bowen LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
The defendant had negligently caused damage to a cab driver and his vehicle in the same accident. The cab driver obtained damages for the damage to his vehicle. Held: He was not disentitled from bringing fresh proceedings for damages for personal injury. There were two causes of action.
Bowen LJ discussed the single action rule, saying: "Nobody can doubt that if the plaintiff had recovered any damages for injury to his person, he could not have maintained a further action for fresh bodily injuries caused by the same act of negligence, merely because they had been discovered or developed subsequently." The rule is based on the maxim interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium, "otherwise great oppression might be done under colour and pretence of law."
1 Citers



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

 
 Joseph Smith (Pauper) v Charles Baker and Sons; HL 21-Jul-1891 - [1891] UKHL 2; [1891] AC 325
 
Pugh v London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Co [1896] 2 QB 248
1896
CA
Lord Esher MR
Personal Injury
The plaintiff signalman saw that there was something wrong one of the carriages of a train approaching at full speed so that the train was in danger. He leant from the window of his signal-box and waved a red flag so that the driver might stop the train. The train was stopped and there was no accident to it or to any of its passengers. But the excitement and fright produced a nervous shock in the signalman which incapacitated him from his employment with the railway company. Held: He had been incapacitated by accident within the meaning of the company's insurance policy. Lord Esher MR said that the fright which he underwent was the accident.
1 Citers


 
Penny v Wimbledon Urban District Council [1898] 2 QB 212
1898


Personal Injury
The court considered the residual duties of a local authority when hiring an independent company to repair a highway.
1 Citers


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