Transport in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Prescott v Birmingham Corporation
    • Court of Appeal
    • 30 Nov 1954

    We think it is clearly implicit in the legislation that while it was left to the Defendants to decide what fares should be charged within any prescribed statutory maxima for the time being in force, the undertaking was to be run as a business venture, or, in other words, that fares fixed by the Defendants at their discretion, in accordance with ordinary business principles, were to be charged.

  • London Passenger Transport Board v Upson
    • House of Lords
    • 09 Dic 1948

    In the view that I have formed it is not necessary for me to deal with the question of negligence. I desire only to register my dissent from the view expressed by the Master of the Rolls that drivers It is common experience that many do not. A driver is not of course bound to anticipate folly in all its forms, but he is not in my opinion entitled to put out of consideration the teachings of experience as to the form those follies commonly take.

  • R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council
    • Supreme Court
    • 19 Ene 2011

    Democratically elected bodies go about their decision-making in a different way from courts. But the courts should not impose too demanding a standard upon such reports, for otherwise their whole purpose will be defeated: the councillors either will not read them or will not have a clear enough grasp of the issues to make a decision for themselves.

  • Addie (Robert) and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Feb 1929

    Towards the trespasser the occupier has no duty to take reasonable care for his protection or even to protect him from concealed danger. An occupier is in such a case liable only where the injury is due to some wilful act involving something more than the absence of reasonable care. There must be some act done with the deliberate intention of doing harm to the trespasser, or at least some act done with reckless disregard of the presence of the trespasser.

  • Burnell v British Transport Commission
    • Court of Appeal
    • 01 Dic 1955

    It would be moot unfair that cross-examining Counsel should use part of the document which was to his advantage and not allow anyone, not even the Judge or the opposing Counsel, a sight of the rest of the document, much of which might have been against him.

  • Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Ene 1981

    It is now well settled that where Parliament by express direction or by necessary implication has authorised the construction and use of an undertaking or works, that carries with it an authority to do what is authorised with immunity from any action based on nuisance.

  • Videan v British Transport Commission
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 May 1963

    It seems to me that, if a person by his fault creates a situation of peril, he must answer for it to any person who attempts to rescue the person who is in danger. The rescuer may act instinctively out of humanity or deliberately out of courage. But whichever it is, so long as it is not wanton interference, if the rescuer is killed or injured in the attempt, he can recover damages from the one whose fault has been the cause of it.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT