Lynch v Nurdin: 1841

The defendant’s servant left his cart and horse on a street where children were playing. A child climbed on the wheel of the cart, other children disturbed the horse, and the child was injured.
Held: The judge had correctly left it to the jury to decide whether the defendant was negligent through his servant. If the servant had been negligent the action was maintainable.


(1841) 1 QB 29, (1841) Arn and H 158, (1841) 113 ER 1041, [1841] EngR 52



Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
CitedCooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland HL 1909
Lord Atkinson said: ‘The duty the owner of premises owes to the persons to whom he gives permission to enter upon them must . . be measured, by his knowledge, actual or imputed, of the habits, capacities and propensities of those persons.’ and ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182877