Davies v Mann
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 04 November 1842 |
Date | 04 November 1842 |
Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 588
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 10; 6 Jur. 954. Applied, Dimes v. Petley, 1850, 15 Q. B. 276; Tuff v. Warman, 1858, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 573; The Bernina (2), 1887, 12 P. D. 89; affirmed nominee Mills v. Armstrong, 13 A. C. 1; The Altair, [1897] P. 105. Approved, Radley v. London and North Western Railway Company, 1876, 1 A. C. 759. Followed, Cayzer v. Carron Company, 1884, 9 A. C. 873. Explained, The Vera Cruz, 1884, 9 P. D. 94. Referred to, Armstrong v. Lancashire and Yorkshire, Railway Company, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 52; Spaight v. Tedcastle, 1881, 6 A. C. 226; Lee v. Nixey, 1890, 63 L. T. 286; The Highland Loch, [1911] P. 280.
i4 navies v. mann. Exch. of Pleas, Nov. 4, 1842.-The general rule of law respecting negligence is, that although there may have been negligence on the part of the plaintiff, yet unless he might by the exercise of ordinary care have avoided the '&ò consequences of the defendant's negligence, he is entitled to recover. Therefore, y&./*. fj-/, where the defendant negligently drove his horses and waggon against and killed an ass, which had been left in the highway fettered in the fore-feet, and thus f. i V*%. imo unaj,je (^ ge£ o^ Of £[,e w;ly Of (-he defendant's waggon, which was going at a . i ^ a** all. smartish pace along the road, it was held, that the jury were properly directed, that although it was an illegal act on the part of the plaintiff so to put the auimal on the highway, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. ! i. C. 12 L. J. Ex. 10; 6 Jur. 954. Applied, Dimes v. Pulley, 1850, 15 Q. B. 27G ; Tuff v. Warman, 1858, r C. B. (N. S.) 573; The Jjerni-na (2), 1887, 12 P. I). 89: affirmed nomine Mills v. Armstrong, l.'J A. C. 1 ; Tke Altair, [1897] P. 105. Approved, Ratlley v. London ami North Western liailway Cinnpany, 1876, I A. C. 759. Followed, Cayser v. Can-on Company, 1884, 9 A. C. 873. Explained, the Vefa Cruz, 1884, 9 P. D. 94. Referred to, Armstrong v. Laiicaxhii-e ami Yorkshire liailway Company, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 52; Spaight v. Tedcastln^l^l, G A. C. 22G ; Lee v. Nmy, 1890, 03 L. T. 28G ; The Highland Loch, [1911] P./v!$0.] Case for negligence. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff' theretofore, and at the time of the committing of the grievance thereinafter mentioned, to wit, on &c., was lawfully possessed of a certain donkey, which said donkey of the plaintiff was then 1 lawfully in a certain highway, and the defendant was then possessed of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sandys v Harrison
...stand. (1) Before Kennedy C.J. and FitzGibbon and Murnaghan JJ. (1) 3 A. C. 1155, at p. 1177. (2) 12 A. C. 41. (3) I. R. 4 C. L. 150. (4) 10 M. & W. 546. (5) L. R. 10 Exch. (6) [1891] 1 Q. B. 86. (7) [1924] 2 K. B. 75. (8) L. R. 3 H. L. 330. (9) 3 Wils. 403. (1) 39 Ir. L. T. R. 165. (2) [19......
-
Ferraiuolo Estate v. Olson, 2004 ABCA 281
...15]. Butterfield v. Forrester (1809), 103 E.R. 926 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 10]. Davies v. Mann (1842), 10 M. & W. 546; 152 E.R. 588 (Ex.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote Phillips v. Homfray (1883), 24 Ch. D. 439 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 11]. Baker v. Bolton (1808)......
- Chan Loo Khee v Lia Siew San
-
Attorney General, Minister for Finance and, v O'Brien
...[1939] I. R. 590. (2) [1916] 1 A. C. 719. (3) [1930] I. R. 87. (4) [1920] 2 I. R. 258. (5) 11 I. C. L. R. 377. (6) 48 T. L. R. 467. (7) 10 M. & W. 546. (8) [1916] 2 I. R. (9) [1922] 1 A. C. 129. (10) [1925] 2 I. R. 211. (11) [1931] A. C. 1. (12) [1934] 1 K. B. 319. (13) [1938] P. 41. (1) [1......
-
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd: beyond Bryan; builders' liability and pure economic loss.
...Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ). (170) [2004] VSC 239 (Unreported, Smith J, 1 July 2004) [86]. (171) Davie v Mann (1842) 10 M & W 546; 152 ER 588. The rule denied a plaintiff's claim where, having the last opportunity to avoid an accident, they negligently failed to avail themselves of (1......