Holliday v The Vestry of the Parish of St Leonard, Shoreditch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1861 |
| Date | 22 May 1861 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 769
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 30 L. J. C. P. 361; 4 L. T. 406; 8 Jur. N. S. 79; 9 W. r. 694. Overruled, Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, 1866, L. R. 1 H. L. 119; 11 H. L. C. 726; Foreman v. Canterbury Corporation, 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. 217; Hillyer v. St. Bartholomew's Hospital, [1909] 2 K. B. 830.
[192] rlor.UDAY (). the vestry of the parish of st. leonard, shoredltch. May 22nd, 1861. [S. C. 30 L. J. C. P. 361 ; 4 L. T. 406; 8 Jur. N. S. 79; 9 W. E. 694. Overruled, Mersey Backs Trustees v. Gibbs, 1866, L. E. 1 H. L. 119 ; 11 H. L. C. 723 ; Foreman v. Canterbury Corporation, 1871, L. R. (! Q. 13. 217 ; Hillyer v. St. Bartholomew's Hospital, [1909] 2 K. B. 830.] Persons infrusted with the performance of a public duty, discharging it gratuitously, and being personally guilty of no negligence or default, are not responsible for an injury sustained by an individual through the negligence of workmen employed under them.-The vestry of L., in whom were by the Metropolis Local Management Act (18 & 19 Viet. c. 120) vested the powers and duties of surveyors of highways, under the powers conferred upon them by that act appointed a surveyor at a salary. Workmen employed by the surveyor, and paid out of the parish funds, being directed to carry certain paving-stones from a public street under repair, and place them in another public street, so negligently performed that duty that the plaintiff in driving through the last-mentioned street was upset and injured:-Held, that the vestry were not responsible. This was an action for negligence. The declaration stated that the defendants, on the 12th of September, 1860, in a certain street called Shaftesbury Street, in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, in the county of Middlesex, laid, put, and placed a quantity of stones on and above the level of the surface of the said street, and wrongfully, carelessly, and negligently suffered and permitted the same to be left and remain in the said street on and above the level of the surface thereof, during the night, the same being a dark one, without a sufficient or any light or signal at or near to the said stones to cause the same to be seen by persons driving in and along the said street, and without having any watchman or person to take care of the same, and without having any board or protection, and without taking any reasonable or proper me;ps or precautions to prevent the said last-mentioned persons from driving against or upon the said stones and being injured thereby ; and that, by means of the premises, the plaintiff, who was then riding and being driven in a cart in the said street, on the said night, was driven, and the said cart ran against and came into collision with and upon and against the said stones, and the plaintiff was cast and thrown from and out of the said cart down to and upon the ground, and was much hurt, bruised, wounded, and injured, and was put to great expense, to wit, &c., in and about endeavouring to get healed, &c. Plearnot guilty by statute,-the statute referred to [193] in the margin being the General Highway Act, 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 50. The cause was tried before Erie, C. J., at the sittings in Middlesex after last Hilary Term, when the following facts appeared in evidence;-The defendants, the vestry of St. Leonard's Shoreditch, in whom, by virtue of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 &, 19 Viet. c. 120, s. 96 (), are vested the powers and duties of surveyors of (a) Which enacts that " every vestry and district board shall, within their parish or district (exclusively of any other persons whatsoever), execute the office of and be surveyors of highways, and have all such powers, authorities, and duties, and be C. P. xx.-25 770 HOLLTDAY I'. ST. LEONARD'S, SHOREDITOH 11 C. B. (N. 3.) 194. highways, and who by s. 62 of the name act are impowered to appoint such surveyors, officers, and servants as they may think fit, duly appointed one Freeman to be the surveyor of the highways for the parish, at a salary. In the early part of September, 1860, the pavement [194] in a certain street in the parish called Cavendish Street being under repair, the labourers employed, by the direction of the surveyor or his deputy, removed a quantity of old paving stones from Cavendish Street to Shaftesbury Street, and there left them without any light or signal to give notice of the obstruction, and in consequence the plaintiff whilst being driven along the road there in a gig was upset and severely injured. The surveyor, who was called, stated that he, as well as his deputy, were appointed by the vestry at a salary; that he employed the labourers, who were paid out of the parish funds; and that he directed the stones to be placed in Shafteshury Street, but did not indicate the particular spot on which they were to be placed, and never saw them there. On the part of the defendants it was submitted, that, being a public body acting gratuitously for the benefit of the public, and guilty of no negligence, they were not responsible for the negligence of their servants. The learned judge declined to nonsuit, but directed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff, reserving leave to the defendants to move to enter a verdict for them, or a nonauit, if the court should be of opinion that they were not under the circumstances liable. Raymond, in Easter Term last, obtained a rule nisi accordingly, on the grounds, -"first, that there was no evidence to go to the jury as against the defendants,- secondly, that the evidence shewed that the defendants were not liable." He referred to l-FTiitjidd v. Lord Le De.yencn; Cowp. 754, Hall v. Smith, 2 Bingh. 15G, 9 J. B. Moore, 226, Duncan v. FindMtr, 6 Clark & Pin. 894, and Mcmley v. The Si. Helen's Canal Itmlway and Company, 2 Hurlst. & N. 840. [195] Shee, Serjt., Francis, and Galway, in Trinity Term, shewed cause. The persons whoso negligence caused the injury to the plaintiff' having been employed by the salaried servant of the vestry to do the thing complained of, the case falls within the ordinary rule which makes an employer liable for the negligence of his servants and workmen. No ground can be suggested upon which a body like this can claim any immunity or exemption from liability. The case of Ruck v. Williamx, 3 Hurlst. & N. 308, very nearly approaches the present case. There, the plaintiff was the owner of premises in Cheltenham which were drained by a sewer which emptied itself into the liver Chelt. At the mouth of the sewer there was a flap or penstock which prevented any water of the river from flowing up the sewer. In the year 1852, an acti of parliament passed for improving the town of Cheltenham (15 Viet. c. 1), which directed the commissioners appointed under it to make new sewers. Accordingly, the commissioners constructed a new sewer which passed under the river Chelt near the plaintiff's premises, and removed the flap from the mouth of the old sewer and connected it with the new sewer. The plaintiff's premises were twelve feet below the summit level of the new sewer. In July, 1855, there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coe against Wise, Clerk to the Middle Level Drainage Commissioners
...like the present. Most of the cases on this subject were reviewed by the Court of Common Pleas in Holliday v. St. Leonard's, Shweditch (11 C. B. N. S. 192), in which Byles J., who tried the cause of Whitehause v. t'elloioes (10 C. B. N. S. 765), so" much pressed in the argument before us, e......
-
Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, Re, (2000) 132 O.A.C. 271 (CA)
...12 Cl. & Fin. 507; 8 E.R. 1508 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30]. Holliday v. St. Leonard, Shoreditch Vestry (1861), 11 C.B.N.S. 192; 142 E.R. 769 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30]. Duncan v. Findlater (1839), 6 Cl. & Fin. 894; 7 E.R. 934 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30]. Georgetown College (Preside......
-
James Levingston v The Guardians of The Poor of The Lurgan Union
...N. 308. (2) 8 L. T. N. S. 574 ; S. C 33 L. (7) 2 Bing. 156. J. Q. B. 39. (8) 10 C. B. N. S. 765. (3) 5 N. R. 249 ; S. C. 11 Jur. N. (9) 11 C. B. N. S. 192. S. 340. (10) 6 Cl. & Fin. 894. (4) 4 K. & J. 528. (11) 12 Cl. & Fin. 507. (5) 1 Gale & Davidson, 220. COMMON LAW SERIES. 211 dians a co......
-
R (Clements) v Tyrone JJ
...23. (6) 12 Q. B. D. 16. (7) [1891] 2 Q. B. 398. (1) 13 C. B. 182. (2) L. R. 6 Q. B. 214. (3) 1 Q. B. D. 321. (4) 6 Cl. & F. 894. (5) 11 C. B. (N. S.) 192. (6) 8 A. C. (7) [1904] 2 I. R. 569. (8) 1 Q. B. D. 36. (1) [1896] 1 Q. B. 335. (2) [1899] 2 Q. B. 72. (3) Ibid. 392. (4) 25 L. T. R. 195......