Greenland v Chaplin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1850 |
| Date | 08 May 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 104
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J. Ex 293, Referred to, Clark v Chambers, L R 3 Q B D 336, The Bermna (2), 1887, 12 P D 71 Discussed, Cory and Son, Limited v France, Fenwick and Company, Limited, (1911) 1 K B 122
greenland v CHArLiN May 8, 1850 - A person who is guilty of negligence, and thereby produces injury to another, cannot set up as a defence, that part of the mischief would not have arrsen if the person injured had not himself been guilty of some negligence - Theiefore, where the plaintiff, a passenger on bo.ud a steamboat, was injured by the falling of an anchor, caused by the defendant's steam-i boat striking the other steam-boat - Held, that it was improper to direct the jury, that, if they thought the collision was owing to the bad navigation of the defendant's steam-boat, they should hnd foi the plaintift, unless there was negligence, either in the stowage of the anchor or in the plaintiff putting himself in the place where he was, so as to lead or contribute to the mischief , in which case the plaintiff could not lecover - Quaere, pei Pollock, C B, whether a person guilty of negligence is responsible fot all possible consequences of it, although they could not have been reasonably foreseen or expected [S C 19 L J. Ex 29.J fiefeired to, Clark v (Jfutmbeii,, L R 3 Q B D 3 JO , Tht Banana (2), 1887, 12 P D 71 Discussed, Cory aiul Man, Lt/inletl v Fiance, Fenwidc and Company, [limited, [1911] 1 K B 1J2 ] Qiae for negligence in navigating the defendant's steam-boat, whereby it struck againpt another steam-boat, on which the plaintiff was a passengei, and, in consequence, his l^g was broken Plea, not guilty - -- 1 - (a) See the next case. 8 EX 2 GREENLAND r CHAPLTN 105 [244] At the hul, befoie Pollock, C B, at the Middlesex Sittings aftet last Michaelmas Tetin, it appealed that the plaintiff was a passengei on board a steamboat called the "iSons of the Thames," which was going ftoin Westminster to London Bridge The defendant's steam-boat, called the " Bacheloi," was going the same \vay, and, as the vessels approached the Adelphi Piei, the " Bacheloi " stiuck the "Sons of the Thames" on the bow, wheie the anchoi was earned, and, in coruse quence, it fell upon and bioke the plaintiffs leg There was conflicting evidence as to the degree of negligent e attributable to the respective steam-boats, and e&pecially ab the propriety of the mode in which the anchor on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Company Ltd (The Wagon Mound)
... ... London [ 1914 ] P. 72 ; 30 T.L.R. 196 ; Weld-Blundell v. Stephens (supra); Rigby v. Hewitt ( 1854 ) 5 Exch. 240 ; Greenland v. Chaplin ( 1850 ) 5 Exch. 243 ; Hadley v. Baxendale ( 1854 ) 9 Exch. 341 ; Cory & Son Ltd. v. France, Fenwick & Co. Ltd. [ 1911 ] ... ...
-
Tame v New South Wales
...Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 469 per Lord Goff of Chieveley. 5 [1932] AC 562 at 580. 6 [1932] AC 562 at 618–619. 7 Greenland v Chaplin (1850) 5 Ex 243 at 248 [ 155 ER 104 at 106]. 8 (1980) 146 CLR 40. 9 (1980) 146 CLR 40 at 42. 10 (1980) 146 CLR 40 at 44. 11 (1984) 155 CLR 549 at 579. 12 [1932......
-
Tame v New South Wales
...Police [1999] 2 AC 455 at 469 per Lord Goff of Chieveley. 5 [1932] AC 562 at 580. 6 [1932] AC 562 at 618–619. 7 Greenland v Chaplin (1850) 5 Ex 243 at 248 [ 155 ER 104 at 106]. 8 (1980) 146 CLR 40. 9 (1980) 146 CLR 40 at 42. 10 (1980) 146 CLR 40 at 44. 11 (1984) 155 CLR 549 at 579. 12 [1932......
-
Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Company
...of Appeal Bankes, Warrington and Scrutton, L.JJ. Polemis v. Furness, Withy, and Co. Limited Rigby v. HewittENRENR 5 Ex. 243 5 Ex. 240 Greenland v. ChaplinENR 5 Ex. 248 Smith v. London and South-Western, Railway Company 23 L. T. Rep. 680 L. Rep. 6 C. P. 21 Cory v. France, Fenwick, and Co.DID......