George Franklin, Administrator of Thomas Franklin, Deceased v The South Eastern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1858 |
| Date | 07 May 1858 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 448
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 4 Jur. (N. S. 565, 6 W. R. 573 Applied, Dalton v. South Eastern Railway, 1858, 4 C. B. (N. S) 296. Explained, Taff Vale Railway v. Jenkins, [1913] A C 9 Commented on, Pym v. Great Northern Railway, 1863, 4 B. & S. 396. Distinguished, Sykes v. North Eastern Railway, 1875, 44 L. J. C. P. 191; 32 L. T. 199. observation adopted, Wolfe v. Great Northern Railway of Ireland, 1890, 26 L. R. Ir. 548. Referred to, Osborn v. Gillett, 1873, L. R. 8 Ex. 95; Clark v. London General Omnibus Company, Limited, [1906] 2 K. B. 658, Berry v. Humm, [1915] 1 K. B. 632.
[211] exchequer reports easter term, 21 vict george franklin, Administrator of Thomas Franklin, Deceased r the south eastern railway company. May 7, 1858.-In an action on the 9 & 10 Viet c. 93, for injury resulting from death, the damages should be calculated in reference to a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit, as of right or otherwise, from the continuance of the life.-In an action by a father for injury resulting from the death of his son, it appeared that the father was old and infirm, that the son, who was young and earning good wages, assisted his father in some work for which the father was paid 3s 6d. a week. The jury having found that the father had a reasonable expectation of benefit from the continuance of his son's life : Held, that the action was maintainable. [S. C. 4 Jur. (N. S.) 565, 6 W. R. 573 Applied, Dalton v. South Eastern Railway, 1358, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 296. Explained, Ta/Fale Railuay v. Jenkins, [1913] A C 9 Commented on, Pym v. Gieat Northern Raihoay, 1863, 4 B. & S. 396. Distinguished, Sykes v. North Eastern Railway, 1875, 44 L. J. C. P. 191 ; 32 L. T. 199. Observation adopted, Wolfe v. Great Northern Railway of Ireland, 1890, 26 L. R. Ir. 548. Referred to, Osborn v. Gillett, 1873, L R. 8 Ex. 95 ; Clark v. London General Omnibus Company, Limited, [1906] 2 K. B. 658, Berry v. Hummt [1915] 1 K. B. 632.1 Declaration, on the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 93; s 2, by the plaintiff, as administrator of Thomas Franklin, against the South Eastern Railway Company, for negligence in carrying the said Thomas Franklin, a passenger by the railway, whereby he was killed. Plea: Not guilty. At the trial before Bramwell, B., at the London sittings after last Michaelmas Term, the following facts appeared :-The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ling Kee Ling and Another v Leow Leng Siong and Others ( No 2)
... ... plaintiffs following the death of the deceased, their husband and father. I had varied the award ... He was working with the textile company till he was retrenched, then he worked for the ... ...
-
Fitzsimons v Telecom Éireann
...(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 GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO OF IRELAND 26 LR (IR) 28......
-
Hay v Hughes
...of evaluation in monetary terms can found claims for damages under the section (see, for example, Franklin -v- South Eastern Railway Co. 3 H & N 211), but the loss need not be a monetary loss a loss of services capable of being valued in pecuniary terms will suffice (Berry -v- Humm & Co. 19......
-
Malyon v Plummer
...the services which brought it about and she was dependent on him for the whole sum credited to her by the company, and Franklin v. South Eastern Railway (185) 3 urlstone & Norman page 211, was quoted in support. The plaintiff Franklin was paid 3s.6d. a week as a light porter at ot. Thon as'......