Dalton v the South-Eastern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1858 |
| Date | 08 May 1858 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 1098
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 l. J. C, P. 227; 4 Jur. N. S. 711; 6 W. R. 574. Applied, Pym v. Great Northern Railway, 1863, 4 B. & S. 407. See Wolfe v. Great Northern Railway, 1890, 26 L. R., Ir. 554. Applied, Taff Vale Railway v. Jenkins, [1913] A. C. 6]
. dalton v. the south-eastern eailway company. May 8th, 1858. [S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 227 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 711 ; 6 W. R. 574. Applied, Pym v. Great Northern Railway, 1863, 4 B. & S. 407. See Wolfe v. Great Northern Railway, 1890, 26 L. E. Ir. 554. Applied, Taff Vale Eailway v. Jenkins, [1913] A. C. 6.] In an action founded upon Lord Campbell's Act, 9 & 10 Viet. c. 93, for injury resulting from death, legal liability alone is not the test of injury in respect of which damages may be recovered ; but the reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage by the relation remaining alive may be taken into account by the jury ; and damages may be given in respect of that expectation being disappointed, and the probable pecuniary loss thereby occasioned. - Therefore, in an action by a father for injury resulting from the death of his son through the negligence of the servants of a railway company, it appeared that the son, who was twenty-seven years of age, and unmarried, but living away from his parents, had for the last seven or eight years been in the habit of visiting them once a fortnight, and of taking them on those occasions presents of tea, sugar, and other provisions, besides money, amounting in the whole to about 201. a year : - Held, that the jury were warranted in inferring that the father had such a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from the continuance of his son's life as to entitle him to recover damages under the statute. - But held, that it was not competent to the jury to award him compensation for the expenses incurred by him for his son's funeral or for family mourning. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of his deceased son, to recover damages under Lord Campbell's Act, 9 & 10 Viet. c. 93, by reason of the deceased having been accidentally killed through the negligence of the defendants' servants. The declaration stated that, before and at the time of the committing of the grievance thereinafter mentioned, the defendants were common carriers of passengers for reward by trains of carriages by a certain railway, and, before the committing of the grievance thereinafter mentioned, the said intestate, at the request of the defendants, became, and at the time of the committing of the said grievance, at their said request, was, a passenger in a certain train of carriages, to be by the defendants carried, for reward to them in that behalf, by the said train of carriages by and along the said railway from one place to another place ; and that, before and at the time of the committing of the said grievance, the defendants were possessed of a [297] certain other train of carriages, and were causing the same to proceed along the said railway, and had the management, government, and direction thereof upon the said railway ; yet that the defendants, by their servants in that behalf, took so little and such bad care in and about the carrying of the deceased as aforesaid by the first-mentioned train, and in and about the management, government, and direction of the said secondly-mentioned train, that, by reason of the said carelessness and negligence, the said secondly-mentioned train came into violent collision with the first-mentioned train, and greatly crushed and broke the carriages whereof it consisted, and by means thereof the said deceased was killed, leaving him surviving his father, the plaintiff, and his mother, Sarah Dalton, for whose benefit this action is brought; and, after his death, administration of all and singular the goods, chattels, and credits which were of the deceased at the time of his death, in due form of law was granted by the Eight Eeverend Father in God, John Bird, by Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan : And the plaintiff, as administrator as aforesaid, claimed 6001. The defendants pleaded not guilty ; whereupon issue was joined. The cause was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferraiuolo Estate v. Olson, 2004 ABCA 281
...422, refd to. [para. 37]. Proctor v. Dyck, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 244, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 29]. Dalton v. South Eastern Railway Co. (1858), 140 E.R. 1098 (Common Bench), refd to. [para. 37, footnote Toronto Railway Co. v. Mulvaney (1907), 38 S.C.R. 327, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 30]. G......
-
Fitzsimons v Telecom Éireann
...1976 IR 191 GALLAGHER V ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD (ESB) 1933 IR 558 BLAKE V MIDLAND RAILWAY CO 18 QB 93 DALTON V SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO 4 CB (NS) 296 FRANKLIN V SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO 3 H & N 211 TAFF VALE RAILWAY V JENKINS 1913 AC 1 PYM V GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO 4 B & S 396 HULL V G......
-
Davies v Taylor
...again on the evidence and on the inference there from as to the future. 42 The test of reasonable expectation was laid down in Dalton v. South Eastern Railway Co. (4 Common Bench New Series 296). It has been repeated in many cases. It has been confirmed by the House of Lords, in Taff Vale ......
-
Davies v Taylor
...[1969] 1 A.C. 350; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1491; [1967] 3 All E.R. 686, H.L.(E.). Dalton v. South Eastern Railway Co. (1858) 3 H. & N. 211; 4 C.B.N.S. 296. Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v. Jennings (1888) 13 App.Cas. 800, P.C. Gregory v. Tarlo (1964) 108 S.J. 219. Herrington v. British Rail......