Emblen v Myers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1860 |
| Date | 22 June 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 23
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 30 L J. Ex. 71; 8 W. R. 665, 2 L. T. 774. Adopted, Bell v. Mulland Railway, 1861, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 287. Applied, Thompson vv. Hill, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 567.
emblen v. myers. June 22, 1860.-In an action for wilful negligence, the jury may take into consideration the motives of the defendant, and if the negligence is accompanied with a contempt of the plaintiff's rights and convenience, the jury may give exemplary damages. [S. C. 30 L. J. Ex 71; 8 W. R. 665 , 2 L. T. 774. Adopted, Bell v. Midland Railway, 1861, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 287. Applied, Thompson v. Hill, 1870, L. K. 5 C. P. 567.] The declaration stated that the plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances, &c., was possessed of certain land, and a certain stable and loft, in the city of London, and then occupied the same, and used it for the purposes of his trade, to wit, of a coal and coke dealer, and the defendant, to wit, on &c., and on divers other days &c., before the commencement of this suit, wrongfully and injuriously pulled down a certain other building in the city aforesaid, next adjoining the said laud, stable, and loft of the plaintiff, in so negligent and improper a manner, and with such a want of proper and due care and skill in that [55] behalf, that by reason thereof a piece of timber fell upon the said stable and loft of the plaintiff, and upon a truck and cart of the plaintiff, then standing upon the said land, and used by the plaintiff in his said trade, whereby the said stable and loft were greatly injured, and the gates of the said stable and loft weie broken and destroyed, and the roof thereof stripped therefrom, and divers goods and harness of the plaintiff therein, exposed, damaged, and destroyed, and the said truck and cart of the plaintiff were bioken and spoiled, and readered unfit for use in his said trade, and by reason of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness, and unskilfulness of the defendant, a part of the said building so pulled down also fell upon a certain horse of the plaintiff, then upon the said land, and uaed by the plaintiff in his said trade, whereby the said horse was severely injured, and has been, and now is, rendered unfit for woik, and by reason of the premises the plaintiff hath from thence hitherto lost and been deprived of the use of his said stable and loft, and of his said cart and truck, and of his said horse, goods, and harness, and has been unable to carry on his said trade, and has lost divers profits therein, &c. Plea. Not guilty. (By statute 18 & 19 Viet. c. 122, ss. 38, 69, 71, 72...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
A.B. v South West Water Services Ltd
...for negligence and breach of statutory duty created post 1964. The only case of negligence on which Mr Melville Williams relied was Emblen v. Myers (1860) Exchequer Reports 54. It does not assist the plaintiffs; it was regarded as a case of trespass by Lord Devlin for which aggravated and n......
-
Rookes v Barnard
...2 Black. W. 1327, Merest v. Harvey (1814) 5 Taunton 442, Sears v. Lyons (1818) 2 Stark. 317, Williams v. Curry (1845) 1 C.B. 841 and Emblen v. Myers (1860) 6 H & N 54. They cover seduction, malicious prosecution and 162It is only in the first and last of these six cases that there is any ex......
- Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd
- Whitfeld v De Lauret & Company Ltd
-
Vicarious Liability and Non‐Delegable Duty for Child Abuse in Foster Care: A Step Too Far?
...Hayne JJ at [270]. See further P. Handford, ‘Intentional Negligence: A Contradiction inTerms?’ (2011) 32 Sydney Law Review 29.60 (1860) 6 H & N 54, 59.61 [2004] 1 WLR 2844 at [17]. See also Williams vHumphrey (1975) The Times, 20 Februar y1975, where a defendant, who pushed the claimant int......