Corby v Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1858 |
| Date | 25 May 1858 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 1209
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 318; 4 Jur. N. S. 512; 6 W. R. 575. Distinguished, Hounsell v. Smyth, 1860, 7 C. B. N. S. 744. Adopted, Pickard-v. Smith, 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 479. Distinguished, Bolch v. Smith, 1862, 7 H. & N. 744. Referred to, Gautret v. Egerton, 1867, L. R. 2 C. P. 375; Smith v. London and St. Katharine Docks Company, 1868, L. E. 3 G. P. 333. Distinguished, Castle v. Parker, 1868, 18 L. T. 367. Referred to, Catkins v. Great Western Railway, 1877, 46 L. J. 0. P. 821. Followed, White v. France, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 308. Referred to, Dublin, Wkldow and Wexford Railway v. Slattery, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 1206; Burchell v. Hickisson, 1880, 50 L. J. C. P. 102. Considered, Heaven v. Fender, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 512. Referred to, Tolhausen v. Davies, 1888, 57 L. J. Q. B. 395; 58 L. J. Q. B. 98; Harris v. Perry, [1903] 2 K. B. 226; Latham v. Johnson, [1913] 1 K. B. 405
[556] cokey v. hill. May 25th, 1858. [S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 318; 4 Jur. N. S. 512; 6 W. E. 575. Distinguished, Hounsell v. Smyth, 1860, 7 C. B. N. S. 744. Adopted, Pickard-v. Smith, 1861, 10 C. B. N. .S. . 479. Distinguished, Bolch v. Smith, 1862, 7 H. & N. 744. Referred to, Gautret v. Egerton, 1867, L. E. 2 C. P. 375; Smith v. London and St. Katharine Docks Company, 1868, L. E. 3 G. P. 333. Distinguished, Castle v. Parker, 1868, 18 L. T. 367. Eeferred to, Catkins v. Great Western Mailway, 1877, 46 L. J. 0. P. 821. Followed, White v. France, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 308. Referred to, Dublin, Wkldow and Wexford Railway v. Slattery, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 1206; Bwrchell v. Hickisson, 1880, 50 L. J. C. P. 102. Considered, Heaven v. Fender, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 512. Referred to, Tolhausen v. Davies, 1888, 57 L. J. Q. B. 395 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 98 ; Harris v. Perry, [1903] 2 K. B. 226; Latham v. Johnson, [1913] 1 K. B. 405 ] The owner of land having a private road for the use of persons coming to his house, gave permission to A., who was engaged in building on the land, to place materials upon the road. A. availed himself of this permission, by placing a quantity of slates there in such a manner that the plaintiff in using the road sustained damage : - Held, that A. was liable to an action. - Held also that the declaration was not objectionable for not averring that the obstruction was placed on the road without permission ; inasmuch as such an allegation, if traversed, would have presented an immaterial issue. This was an action against the defendant for negligently leaving certain slates upon a certain road, whereby the plaintiff's horse was injured. The declaration stated, that, before and at the time when, &c., the plaintiff was lawfully possessed of a certain carriage, and of a certain horse drawing the said carriage, which said horse and carnage were under the government and direction of a servant of the plaintiff, and which said horse and carriage were then, with the consent of the owners and occupiers of the land and road and carriage line thereinafter mentioned, during the night-time, under such care and government as aforesaid, lawfully in and lawfully being driven along certain land and a certain road or carriage line, part of and crossing the said land then belonging to and occupied by certain persons other than the plaintiff and the defendant, and leading to a certain public building known as the Han well Lunatic Asylum, for the purpose of proceeding to the said building ; that the defendant then negligently, carelessly, and improperly kept and continued upon and across the said road or carriage line, part of the said land, a stack of slates, and divers other things and materials, without placing or keeping any light or signal near them, or adopting 'any means whatever to shew that the said slates and other materials were upon or across the said land, road, or carriage line ; by reason whereof it was then impossible ;for the servant of the plaintiff to see or avoid the said slates, materials, or other things ; and that, by reason thereof, the said horse drawing the said carriage, while being driven by the said servant as aforesaid, ran into, upon, [557] and against the said stack of slates or other materials and things, and was greatly bruised, wounded, and injured : special damage. The fourth plea stated that the defendant had lawfully placed, kept, and continued the said slates and other things and materials across the said land and road or carriage line by the license of the owners and occupiers of the said land, road, or carriage line, before the consent of the owners and occupiers of the said land, road, or carriage line as .in the declaration alleged ; and that the said consent so given to the defendant was in full force at the time when, &c. ; and that the alleged damage was not sustained. by any breach of duty of the defendant. Issue thereon. The cause was tried before Byles, J., at the sittings in London after the last term. The facts which appeared in evidence were as follows :- The carriage-road or way in question was a private road leading from the turnpike-road to the Han well Lunatic Asylum and to the residence of the superintendent, Dr. Saunders. The defendant, a 1210 CORBY V. HILL 4 C. B. (N. S.) 558. builder, was employed to do certain work at the asylum, and, with the consent of the owners of the land, stacked certain slates and other materials upon a portion of the road, without taking the precaution of placing a light near them at night; in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ng Shin Hon v Chow Wai Chuang
... ... 1966 the defendant was carrying out under a contract with the Government of Singapore certain works on the land forming the curtilege of Monk`s Hill School in connection with an extension of the school by adding an additional floor to the building and constructing a staircase leading up to it. The ... Whilst a cabman was leading out his horse it fell into the trench and was killed. The contractor was held liable for negligence. In Corby v Hill ER 1209 the owner of land having a private road for the use of persons coming to his house gave permission to a building contractor, who was ... ...
-
Billings (A. C.) & Sons Ltd v Riden
...lunatic asylum, and loft them unlighted at night. A visitor ran into them in the dark. The contractor was held liable for negligence; see Corby v. Hill (1858) 4 Common Bench Reports, New Series, 556. In 1918 a gas company.when putting gas into a private house, made a hole in the floor and f......
-
Hawkins v Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council
...Queen's Bench Division, 503, at page 514). Mr Justice Willes just after the passage I have quoted refers to ( Corby v. Hill 4 Common Bench, New Series, page 556). In that case the Plaintiff was a licensee, The Defendant being not the occupier but there by permission of the occupier. The Def......
- Commissioner for Railways (Nsw) v Cardy