Cashill against Wright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1856 |
| Date | 03 July 1856 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1096
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 Jur. N. S. 1072; 4 W. R. 709. Adopted, Oppenheim v. White Lion Hotel Company, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 521. See Medawar v. Grand Hotel Company, [1891] 2 Q. B. 15.
cashill against wright. Thursday, July 3d, 1856. Whore the goods of a guest an inn are lost, the innkeeper is liable as for breach of duty unless the negligence of the guest occasions the loss in such a way as that the loss would not have happened if the guest had used the ordinary care that a prudent man may be reasonably expected to have taken under the circumstances. Where there is such negligence, the innkeeper is not responsible.-Therefore, where an innkeeper set up such negligence, in answer to an action by the owner for the loss of goods, and the Judge told the jury that the innkeeper was responsible unless there had been gross negligence on the part of the owner, but did not explain what would constitute gross negligence : Held, a misdirection, insomuch as the jury might have understood that the plaintiff was entitled to recover unless there had been an absence, on his part, of even the loosest degree of care. [S. C. 2 Jur. N. S. 1072; 4 W. R. 709. Adopted, Oppenheim v. White Lion Hotel Company, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 521. See Medawar v. Grand Hotel Company, [1891] 2 Q. B. 15.] This was an action brought in the Court of Record for the trial of civil actions within the city of Manchester. The declaration was for the loss of plaintiff's cash, gold watch and chain, stolen from him while he was abiding and putting up as a traveller in an inn of which defendant was proprietor. Pleas: 1. Not guilty : 2. That the money &c., at the time when &c., was in plaintiff's exclusive custody and possession. Issues on both pleas. On the trial, before the Recorder of Manchester, it appeared that plaintiff had passed a night at the inn, as a guest: and, in the course of the night, a watch and some sovereigns, his property, and which he had at the inn, were stolen by a person who was afterwards tried for the theft and convicted. The defence was, that the loss had been occasioned by the negligence [892] of the owner, who had shewn some money (whether including the money lost did not distinctly appear) is the commercial room of the inn, and had afterwards placed his watch on the table in his bed roam, leaving the door of the bed room ajar. The sovereigns which were lost were in a paper in a pocket of the plaintiff's trousers, which lay on a chair in the room. The person who stole the money had obtained admission, as a guest, during the night. The Recorder directed the jury to find for the plaintiff, unless they were of opinion that there had been gross negligence on his part; but the Recorder did not explain what would constitute gross negligence. Verdict for the plaintiff. Hugh Hill, in last Hilary Term, obtained a rule calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why a new trial should not be had : " on the ground of misdirection in this, &BL.&HL.893. CASHILL V. WRIGHT 1097 that the learned Recorder directed the jury that, if they did not think the conduct of the plaintiff amounted to gross negligence, he was entitled to their verdict; whereas the Recorder should have directed the jury that, if there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff conducing to the loss, the defendant was exonerated; also that the Recorder should have explained what constituted gross negligence." In last Easter Term (a)', Wheeler and Joseph Kay shewed cause. The Recorder was right in directing the jury to find for the defendant if they considered that there was gross negligence on the part of the;plaintiff. That was the direc-[893]-tion in Armistead v. Wilde (17 Q. B. 261), which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Overseas Union Enterprise Ltd; Bui Van Tuyen and Another
-
Morgan v Ravey and another
...without subtraction or loss by day or night (Jalyes case (8 Eep. 32 a.). In delivering the judgment of the Court in CaJtill v. Wiight (6 E & B. 891, 900), Erie, J., said .-"We think that [273] the rule of law, resulting from all the authorities, is that in a case like the present, the goods......
-
Waterfall and Others v Penistone
...same premises with the machinery then (a) 10 Exch. 496, in Exch. See Bishop v. Elliott, in Error; 11 Exch. 113. 1096 CASBILL V. WRIGHT 6 EL. & BL. 891. thereon had been made by the bankrupt to Mr. Marsh in November 1850, and as, by deed of 4th September 1853, the bankrupt had charged his eq......
-
Andrews v DPP (on Behalf of HM) (Criminal Appeal)
...on the contrary, the amount and degree of negligence are the determining question. There must be mens rea." After citing Cahill v. Wright 6 E. & B. 891 (1856), a civil case, the Lord Chief Justice proceeds: "In explaining to juries the test which they should apply to determine whether the n......