Hammack, Administratrix, v White
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1862 |
| Date | 14 January 1862 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 926
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 129; 5 L. T. 676; 8 Jur. N. S. 796; 10 W. R. 230. See Scott v. London Dock Company, 1864, 34 L. J. Ex. 17; Fletcher v. Rylands, 1866-68, L. R. 1 Ex. 286; L. R. 3 H. L. 330. Approved, Smith v. Great Eastern Railway, 1866, L. R. 2 C. P. 10. See Fowler v. Lock, 1872-74, L. R. 7 C. P. 286; L. R. 9 C. P. 751 (n); L. R. 10 C. P. 90. Upheld, Manzoni v. Douglas, 1880, 6 Q. B. D. 145.
[588] hammagk, Administratrix, v. white. Jan. 14th, 1862. [S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 129 ; 5 I,. T. 676 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 796 ; 10 W. R. 230. See Scott v. London Dock Company, 1861, M L. J. Ex. 17; YlddiKf v. Jiylaiidx, 1860-68, L. E. 1 Ex. 286 ; L. E. .'! H. L. 330. Approved, Smith v. Great Eastern Kail-way, I860, L. E. 2 C. P. 10. See Fowler v. Lock, 1872-74, L. R. 7 C. P. 286 ; L. E. 9 C. P. 751 (ò); L. E. 10 0. P. 90. Upheld, Manzuni v. Douglas, 1880, (i Q. B. D. 145.) The defendant bought a horse at Tattersal's, and the next day took him out to " try " him in Firisbury Circus, a much-frequented thorough fare. From some unexplained cause, the horse became restive, and, notwithstanding the defendant's well-directed efforts to control him, ran upon the pavement and killed a man : - Held, that these facts disclosed no evidence of negligence which the judge was warranted in submitting to the jury!. This was an action upon Lord Campbell's Act, 9 & 1 0 Viet. c. 93, by Mrs. llammack, the widow and administratrix of William Hammack, to recover damages against the defendant for having by his negligence caused the death of the intestate. The declaration alleged that the deceased, in his life-time, was lawfully passing in and along a certain common and public highway, and that the defendant ao carelessly, negligently, and improperly rode u certain vicious horse in the said highway that, by and through the carelessness, negligence, and improper conduct of the defendant in that behalf, the said horse ran with great force and violence upon and against the deceased, and cast and threw him down and so injured him that the deceased, within twelve months next before the action, died. The defendant pleaded not guilty ; whereupon issue was joined. The causp was tried before the Recorder of London in the Lord Mayor's Court, when the following facts appeared in evidence : - On the 7th of May, 1861, the deceased was walking on the foot-pavement in Finsbury ll.C.B.(N.S.)589. HAMMACK V. WHITE 927 Circus, when be was knocked down and kicked by a horse on which the defendant was riding. He was picked up and carried to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where he died on the 16th in Consequence of the injuries he had sustained. It appeared that the defendant had bought the horse the day before at Tattersal's, and had taken it out to try it, when the horse became unmanageable and swerved from the= roadway on to the pavement, notwithstanding the defendant's efforts to restrain him. [589] It did not appear that the defendant had omitted to do anything he could have done to prevent the accident: but it was insisted on the part of the plaintiff, that tha mere fact of the defendant's having ridden in such a place a horse with whose temper he was wholly unacquainted, was evidence of negligence. Some reliance was also placed upon the fact of there being certain police-notices affixed at various parts of the circus, cautioning all persons not to exercise horses there. The learned Recorder, being of opinion that there was nothing in the evidence to warrant a jury in finding that the defendant had been guilty of negligence, directed a nonsuit. Patchett, in Michaelmas Term last, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the f round' of misdirection. He referred to Weaver v. Ward, 2 Rol. Abr. 548, Hob. 134, . Moore, 864, Micfiael v. Ahxtree, '2 Lev. 172, 1 Ventr. 295, 3 Keble, 650, and Leame v. Bray, 3 East, 593. H. James now shewed cause. If a man intentionally commits an unlawful act, he is responsible for all the consequences which may reasonably be expected to flow from aueh an act. So, if he is guilty of negligence in the doing of a lawful act, and the natural and proximate result is injury to a third person, he is liable : see Scott v. Shepherd, 2 Sir W. Bl, 892, and the authorities collected in the notes to that case in Smith's Leading Cases, 4th edit. 343. In all these cases the intention of the party was to do the act from which the mischief ensued. There was no such intentional acting here. There was nothing to shew that the horse was ridden negligently, or that the rider knew him to be vicious or restive. In Gibbons v. Pepper, 1 Lord Raym. 38, 4 Mod. 404, 2 Salk. 637, it seems to [590] have been held that a person who causes the accident by spurring the horse would be liable. [ Willes, J. Incautiously using the spur at an inauspicious moment was recently held in this court to be some evidence of negligence : see North v. Smith, ante, vol. x., p. 572.] Negligently driving on a dark night on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gee Hup & Company v Yeo Swee Hern trading as Chop Yong Bee Huat
- Gayler and Pope Ltd v Davies & Son
-
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd
...Docks Co (1865) 3 H & C 596 at 601 [159 ER 665 at 667]. There were two earlier formulations: Hammack v White (1862) 11 CB(NS) 588 [142 ER 926] and Byrne v Boadle (1863) 2 H & C 722 [159 ER 299]. Scott'sCase has been described as the ‘foundation of all subsequent authority’: Moore v R Fox &......
-
Fontaine v. Loewen Estate, (1996) 74 B.C.A.C. 241 (CA)
...to. [para. 72]. Lee v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1986), 2 B.C.L.R.(2d) 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75]. Hammack v. White (1862), 142 E.R. 926 refd to. [para. Byrne v. Boadle (1863), 159 E.R. 299 refd to. [para. 80]. Ballard v. North British Railway Co., [1923] S.C. (H.L.) 43, con......