Farrant v Barnes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1862 |
| Date | 23 January 1862 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 912
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 137; 8 Jur. N. S. 868. See Indermaur v. Dames, 1866-67, L. R. 1 C. P. 286; L. R. 2 C. P. 311. Discussed, Bamfield v. Goole and Sheffield Transport Company, [1910] 2 K. B. 102.
[553] farrant v. barnes. Jan. 23rd, 1862. [S. C. 31 L J. C. P. 137 ; 8 .fur. N. S. 868. See Iiidennaur v. Dames, 1866-67, I,. R. L C. P. 286 ; L. R. 2 C. P. 311. Discussed, Jiamjield v. Goole ami Sheffield Tmnspwt Company, [1010] 2 K. B. 102.] Onf who emplpys a carrier to carry an article of such a dangerous nature as to require extraordinary care in its conveyance, must communicate the fact to the carrier, or h:e will be responsible for any injury which may result to the carrier or his servant* from his omission to do so. - The defendant being desirous of sending a carboy of nitric acid to Croydon, his foreman gave it to one K., the servant of a railway earner, who (as the railway company would only carry articles of that dangerous character an one day in each week,) handed it to the plaintiff, the servant of a Croydon carrier, without communicating to him (and there being nothing in its appearance to indicate) its dangerous nature. Whilst being carried by the plaintiff' to the cart, the carboy from some unexplained cause burst, and its contents Mowed over and severely injured the plaintiff: - Held, that the defendant was liable for the injury thus resulting from his breach of duty. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for an injury sustained by him from the insufficient packing of a carboy of nitric acid which he was employed to carry for the defendant. 11 C. B. (N. S.) 554. FARRANT V.BARNES 913 The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendant, by falsely, fraudulently) and deceitfully representing to the plaintiff that a certain carboy contained ordinary acid, and falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully concealing from him that it contained an explosive article, dangerous to be carried, called nitric acid, caused and procured the plaintiff to carry the same for the defendant, arid that the same exploded and burst whilst the plaintiff was so carrying the same, and burned the plaintiff and his clothes, &c. The second count stated that the defendant employed the plaintiff to carry a carboy of acid for him, the defendant, on the terms that the same was not dangerous to be carried, and that the defendant had taken due and ordinary care to prevent injury to the plaintiff whilst carrying the same, aud that the plaintiff then accepted and entered upon the said employment, and carried the said carboy of acid for the defendant on the terms aforesaid : Breach, that the said carboy of acid was then dangerous to be carried, aud that the defendant had not taken due and ordinary care to prevent injury to the plaintiff whilst carrying the said carboy ; and that, by reason of the default and breach of duty of the defendant, the said carboy of acid exploded whilst the plaintiff was so carrying the [554] same for the defendant, and burned the plaintiff and his clothes ; by means of which several premises the plaintiff had been and was permanently injured in hia health, and his clothes were destroyed, and he necessarily incurred great expense for medical and other assistance, and was disabled for a long time from following his business of a carrier, and was and is otherwise injured. The defendant pleaded,-first, not guilty,-secondly, to the first count, a traverse of the false representation,-thirdly, to the last count, a traverse of the employment of the plaintiff on the terms there mentioned,-fourthly, to the second count, that the said carboy was not dangerous to be carried, and that the defendant had taken due and ordinary care to prevent injury to the plaintiff' whilst carrying the said carboy. Issues thereon. The caase was tried before Blackburn, .1., at the last Summer Assizes at Croydon. It appeared from the plaintiff's evidence, that he and his father were in the employ of one Bussell, a carrier between London and Croydon ; that it was part of the plaintiff's duty to collect goods in the city and to convey them in a van to the Elephant and Castle, at Newington, where he transferred the goods he had collected to a cart in which they were conveyed to Croydon ; that, on the 1st of May, 1801, whilst going his round, he met in Cannon Street, in the city, one Rayner, a carman in the employ of one Pescott, a railway carrier, who asked him if he would take a carboy (which he told him contained "acid," without more,) and a bottle for Croydon; and, upon his agreeing to do so, Russell brought them and placed them in the plaintiffs van,-the carboy being a glass bottle encased in wicker-work, weighing a little over 1 cwt., and having attached to its neck a wooden label on which was written " Mr. [555] Wateman, dyer, Croydon. Acid ;" that he proceeded with his van, containing these and various other goods, to the Elephant and Castle, at a foot-pace; that, on his arrival there, the other goods having first been taken out, his father removed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive
...without cautioning him, I may be responsible for any injury he sustains through the absence of such caution. That was the case of Farrant v. Barnes. But, what duty does the law impose upon these defendants to keep their bridges in repair? If I dedicate a way to the public which is full of r......
-
M'Alister or Donoghue (Pauper) v Stevenson
...( Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 470), but it is also a duty owed independently of contract, e.g. to the carrier's servant ( Farrant v. Barnes 11 C.B.N.S. 563). So far as the cases afford an analogy they seem to support the proposition now asserted. I need only mention to distinguish tw......
-
Mullen v Barr & Company M'Gowan v Barr & Company
...has a claim against the maker on the ground of negligence—Heaven v. PenderELR, 11 Q. B. D. 503, per Cotton, L.J., at p. 517; Farrant, 11 C. B. (n. s.) 553; Lush, J., in Blacker, 106 L. T. 533, at p. 540; Dominion Natural Gas Co., [1909] A. O. 640. The pursuers endeavoured to bring their cas......
- Vickers v British Transport Docks Board and Dorman Long (Steel)Ltd