Cooper v Walker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1862 |
| Date | 16 June 1862 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 1258
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. Q. B. 212; 6 L. T. 711; 8 Jur. N. S. 1208. Followed, Robbins v. Jones, 1863, 15 C. B. N. S. 243. Applied, Mercer v. Woodgate, 1869, L. R. 5 Q. B. 31. Observation applied, Cubitt v. Maxse, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 714; Hamilton v. St. George, Hanover Square, 1873, L. R. 9 Q. B. 46. Principle applied, Moore v. Lambeth Waterworks Company, 1886, 17 Q. B. D. 466; R. v. Londonderry JJ., [1902] Ir. R. 273.
[770] fisher against prowse. cooper against walker. Monday, June 16th 1862. - Highway. Obstruction. Dedication. Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120. - 1. Where an erection or excavation exists upon land, and the land on which it exists, or to which it is contiguous, is dedicated to the public as a highway, the dedication must be taken to be made to the public and accepted by them, subject to the inconvenience or risk arising from the existing state of things. - 2. The defendant occupied a house adjoining to a public street, with a cellar belonging to it, which cellar had existed before the defendant had anything in the house. The mouth of this cellar opened into the footway of the street by a trap door. During the day this trap door was open, but at night it wai closed by a flap, which slightly projected above the footway, and it bad so projected as long as living memory went back. The plaintiff, coming along the footway at night, stumbled over this flap, fell, and sustained injury, for which be brought an action. Held, that the jury ought to draw the conclusion that the cellar flap had existed as long as the street, and that the dedication of the way to the public was with the cellar flap in it, and subject to its being continued there ; and, therefore, that the defendant was not liable, as the maintenance of such an ancient cellar flap was not unlawful. - 3. Declaration for negligently and improperly placing in a public street certain steps, so that the same were an obstruction to persons using the street, and dangerous to persons passing along it at night ; and averring that the plaintiff passing along the street, (ell over them and was injured. Flea, that the street waa subject to the right of the occupiers of a house adjoining it to have steps standing in the highway and leading up to the outer door of the house, all persons passing along the highway being entitled to pass on foot over the steps as a part of the highway, which steps were part of the house ; that, the street being lowered under The Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, the old steps were necessarily removed, and the present steps placed in their room ; that the new steps were placed on the same part of the highway on which the old steps had stood, and caused no greater obstruction or danger than did the old steps. Held that the plea was good, as the former highway was subject to the right on the part of the occupiers of the defendant's house to keep these steps there, and the lowered highway was subject to a similar right. [S. C. 31 L. J. Q. B. 212 ; 6 L. T. 711 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1208. Fallowed, Bobbins v. Jones, 1863, 15 C. B. N. S. 243. Applied, Mercer v. floodgate, 1869, L. R. 5 Q. B. 31. Observations applied, Cubitt v. Mazse, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 714 ; Hamilton \. St. George, Hanover Square, 1873, L. R. 9 Q. B. 46. Principle applied, Moore v. Lambeth Wattr-war^s Company, 1886, 17 Q. B. D. 466; E. v. Londonderry JJ., [1902] 2 Ir. R. 273.]
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 1259
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[773] cooper against walker. The declaration alleged that the defendant wrongfully, negligently and improperly placed, and caused to be placed, in a public street or thoroughfare, called Christopher Street, certain stone steps, so that the same became and were an obstruction and hindrance to persons using the street, and dangerous to persons passing along it at night; and that the plaintiff was passing along the street by night, as she lawfully might, after the said stone steps had been so placed by the defendant in the street, and had been left unguarded and unfenced by him, whilst they were dangerous to persons passing along the said street by night, when her foot struck against the stone stepa; and the plaintiff was, by means of the premises, and of the negligent, wrongful ajid improper conduct of the defendant in that behalf, thrown down, and her thigh was broken, &c. Pleas. First, not guilty; second, except as to the negligence alleged, that the said highway, before and at the time when it was lowered as thereinafter mentioned, and at the time of, &e., was subject to the right of the occupiers for the time [being]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v British Railways Board
...a public right of way over a railway had become dangerous owing to ice, adopted as good law the observations of Mr. Justice Blockburn in Cooper v. Walker. In my judgment, it is one thing to dedicate a highway, to the use of the public subject to the existing state of things, but quite anoth......
-
McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive
...of Appeal the defendants' appeal was allowed. Swinfen Eady L.J. at p. 1605, after quoting a passage from the judgment of Blackburn J. in Cooper v. Walker (1862) 31 L.J.Q.B. 212, 218, said: "Now here, assuming that this footway is a public highway, I see from that no obligation upon the defe......
- Low v R J Haddock Ltd and Another; Carrick v Same