Cough against Steel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 1193
COURTS OF QUEENS BENCH AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 2 C. L. R. 940; 23 L. J. Q. B. 121; 18 Jur. 515; 2 W. R. 170. Distinguished, Wilson v. Merry, 1868, L. R. 1 H. L. Se. 340; Jones v. Swanstead, Shefford and Chambly Railroad Company, 1872, L. R. 4 P. C. 116. Referred to, Pickering v. James, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 509. See Gorris v. Scott, 1874, L. R. 9 Ex. 125. Questioned, Atkinson v. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Company, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 441. Distinguished and observed upon, Hildige v. O'Farrell, 1880, 6 L. R. Ir. 493. Adopted, Robertson v. Amazon Tug and Lighterage Company, 1881, 7 W. B. D. 663. Commented on R. v. Hall, [1891] 1 Q. B. 769. Doubted, Cowley v. Newmarket Local Board, [1892] A. C. 352. Referred to, Thompson v. Brighton Corporation, [1894] 1 Q. B. 336. Disapproved, Saunder v. Holborn District Board of Works, [1895] 1 Q. B. 68. Discussed, Dawson v. Bingley Urban Council, [1911] 2 K. B. 160.
1|4^^- ,-Hf.-.,i,r i^LfLI.IJf.f^ {? // .'aif, . . JT-J /, [402] couch ajrainsfSTEEL. 1854. 1st count. That plaintiff engaged with defendant, to serve on board defendant's (a British) vessel, as a common seaman, on a specified voyage from and to a British port. Breach : that the vessel was leaky and unseaworthy, by which plaintiff became unwell and sustained damage.-Held, on demurrer, that the count was bad, there being no allegation of knowledge or deceit, or of any express warranty that the vessel was seaworthy: and the law not implying any such warranty from the relation of shipowner and aeaman.- 2nd count. That defendant neglected to supply and keep on board the vessel a proper supply of medicines, whereby plaintiff's health suffered.-Held, on demurrer, that stat. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 112, s. 18, makes it the duty of the shipowner to have on board such medicines; and that, though the Act imposes a penalty, recoverable by a common informer, as the specific punishment for the breach of that duty as to the public, sailors sustaining a private injury from the breach of that statutable duty are entitled to maintain an action to recover damages. And that the count was good. [S. C. 2 C. L. E. 940; 23 L. J. Q. B. 121; 18 Jur. 515; 2 W. R. 170. Distinguished, Wilson v. Merry, 1868, L. E. 1 H. L. Sc. 340; Jones v. Swanstead, Shefford and Chambly Railroad Company, 1872, L. E. 4 P. C. 116. Referred to, Pickering v. James, 1873, L. E. 8 C. P. 509. See Garria v. Scott, 1874, L. E. 9 Ex. 125. Questioned, Atkinson v. Newcastle and Oateshead Waterworks Company, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 441. Distinguished and observed upon, Hildige v. O'Farrell, 1880, 6 L. R. Ir. 493. Adopted, Robertson v. Amazon Tug and Lighterage Company, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 663. Commented on, R. v. Hall, [1891] 1 Q. B. 769. Doubted, Cowley v. Newmarket Local Board, [1892] A. C. 352. Referred to, Thompson v. Brighton Corporation, [1894] 1 Q. B, 336. Disapproved, Saunders v. Holborn District Board of Works, [1895] 1 Q. B. 68. Discussed, Dawson v. Bingley Urban Council, [1911] 2 K. B. 160.] The first count of the declaration alleged that defendant, then and still being a subject of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, was the owner of a certain British registered barque or vessel, called arid known as "The Persian," which, at the time of the making of the agreement, was in port within this realm, to wit in the port of Plymouth; and plaintiff, then being a subject of Her said Majesty, was then an able bodied seaman in good health, duly registered, and had a register ticket. " And thereupon plaintiff iu his own behalf, and defendant by one John Davis, the master of the said barque or vessel of defendant, and the agent of defendant in that behalf, made and entered into an agreement in writing, in the form and containing all the matters and things, and made, entered into, signed, dated and attested, in all things, as required in and by the statute in that case" &c. : Whez'eby it was agreed, by and between plaintiff and defendant (amongst other things), that defendant engaged plaintiff to serve, and plaintiff promised to serve, as a seaman in and on board the said barqne or vessel from a certain place, to wit Plymouth, to a certain other place, to wit Aden, and from the last mentioned place to a certain other place, to wit Calcutta, [403] and from the last mentioned place to a certain other place, to wit England, for wages and reward to be paid by defendant to plaintiff in that behalf. That plaintiff shipped himself on board, and served on the voyage out, and performed the said agreement in all things on his part. "Yet the defendant ao carelessly and negligently managed, fitted out and equipped the said barque or vessel that, by reason thereof, and of the defendant's neglect and default in respect of the said barque or vessel, the barque or vessel, at the time of her sailing from Plymouth aforesaid and K. B. xlvii.-38* 1194 COUCH V. STEEL 3 EL. & Bit. Mt commencing the said voyage, was wholly unseaworthy and in a. leaky and dangerous condition, and unfit to be sent or to go to sea ; and, by reason thereof, the plaintiff was, during the voyage aforesaid from Plymouth aforesaid to Aden aforesaid, and from Aden aforesaid to Calcutta aforesaid, unable to sleep in his hammock, and was continually wet; and thereby, and by reason of the excessive and unreasonable labour which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- A-G, The; the petition of the Straits Steamship Company Ltd
- Central Electricity Board; Yusoff
-
Solomons v R Gertzenstein Ltd
...think theiramount assists in deciding the question. 12 Attempts to lay down a principle have, as it seems to me, been unsuccessful. In Couch v. Steel 3 Ellis and Blackburn, page 402, a sailor suffered in health from the absence on board of medicines as laid down by 7 and 8 Victoria, chapter......
-
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council
...County Council [2000] 1 WLR 1356 at 1361; [2000] 3 All ER 603 at 608. See also the earlier cases of Couch v Steel (1854) 3 El & Bl 402 [ 118 ER 1193] and Young v Davis (1862) 7 H & N 760 [ 158 ER 675]; (1863) 2 H & C 197 [ 159 ER 82] discussed by Fullagar J in Gorringe (1950) 80 CLR 357 at......