Houghland v R R Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 1962 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1962] EWCA Civ J0313-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 13 March 1962 |
[1962] EWCA Civ J0313-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal from Judge Bolyn Jones. Birkenhead County Court
Lord Justice Orkerod
Lord Justice Willner and
Lord Justice Danckwerts
Mr E. SOMERSET JONES (Instructed by Messrs Dickinson, Miller & Tumbull, Agents for tir Charles D. Kunro, Liverpool) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
Hr DAVID B. McNEILL (Instructed by Messrs Marrla & Shepherd, Agents for Messrs David Carr & Roe, Birkenhead) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
LORD JUSTICE ORMEKODt We need not trouble you, Mr McNeill.
This appeal, In my Judgment, must all. It Is from a decision of His Honour Judge Emlyn Jones given at Birkenhead County Court on the 9th. October 1961 when he gave Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of £82,10s. lld. The circumstances are that the plaistlff and her husband (who has since died) were old age pensioners, and they arranged to go on a trip to Jersey which ao arranged under the aegis of a body called the Good Coiapanlons Club through a travel agency known as Carefree Travel. The party returned to Southampton on the 21st September 1960 to journey to Hoyiake in Cheshire the defendant company's motor coach. The learneCounty Court Judge has found that when the party got on to the ooach at Southampton after the baggage had been through the Customs, the suit eases of all the members of the party were loaded Into the boot of the coach, whioh was looked by the driver. The coaoh then proceeded to Hoylake. It stopped at Oxford, and the uncontradicted evldenoe of the driver is that he needed then to take a water oan out of the boot; he unlocked the fcoot for that purpose, but lrooedlately relocked It. The boot then remained looked until the ooach got to a place celled Temhill, where the party stopped for a cup of tea. Having stopped, end hoping to continue their Journey. It appears that for some reason which la quite Immaterial, the ooach engine would not start. Thereupon the driver, a man celled Sherlock, telephoned to the defendants, spoke to his principal (the managing director of the company) Mr Low, and asked for arelief ooach to be sent. There was a delay of some three hours, but eventually the relief coach arrived. The luggage was then transferred from the first coach to the relief vehicle in circumstances to which I will refer. After this delay, the party got on the second coach, which eventually arrived at Hoylake. The plaintiff and her huebond then found that theirsuit case was not In the boot of the coaoh, and oareful Inquiry failed to locate It.
It apeears from the evidence and the finding of the learned Judge that when the coaoh was at Temhill during this delay of some three hours, It was standing unattended, and when the relief coaoharrived driven by Mr Low, he went off to have some tea whilst the driver of the first coaoh superintended the loading of the party's luggage into the relief coach. In order to do that he unlocked the boot of the second ooach end supervised the loading of the luggage Into that boot as he was experienced in stowing luggage. The unloading from the first eoaeh and the transfer of the luggage to the relief ooach was done by the passengers, and eventually the whole of the luggage was stowed in the second ooach so far as the driver was aware; the boot was locked, and the partythen proceeded to Hoy lake. The only time when the boot was unlocked was when from tiara to time, as the ooaoh was nee ring Hoy lake, various members of the party had occasion to leave it; and if that happened the driver unlooked the boot, took out whatever luggage they asked for, and looked the boot again. All this evldenoe was before the learned County Court Judge.
The action was brought against the defendants by Mrs Houghland and the claim was put in two ways. First, there was a claim in detinue for "delivery up of the said suit case end the contents thereof or £82.10s. lid, their value". Secondly, there was a claim in the alternative for damages, presumably for negligence, in a sum not exceeding £100. The learned Judge, according to the note thatwe have of his Judgment - indeed, we have two notes, each taken by the respective counsel in the case - found In the first place that the driver of the coach was a bailee of the suit case, end that the bailment was a gratuitous bailment. I am not sure that there Is any evidence for the latter finding; end Indeed, I might well, I think, have come to a different conclusion. But Mr MoKeill, on behalf of the respondents, was given an opportunity of filing a notice asking for that particular finding to be set aside, but found it unnecessary to avell himself of the opportunity.
The leerned Judge then found that it was probably at Ternlll that the suit case was either taken or lost; and in the circumstances he decided thet the defendants were liable to pay this sum of £82.10s. lid.
The objection made to that finding, as I understand it, is that as this was a gratuitous bailment, the high degree of negligence required (otherwise called gross negligence in some of the eases) has not been established; that the learned Judge made no finding of negligence; and that in the circumstances the Judgment should not stand. I am bound to say that I am not sore what it meant by the term "gross negligence" which has been in use for a long time in oases of this kind. There is no doubt,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaudhry v Prabhakar
...as that which may reasonably be expected of him in all the circumstances. This was the approach of the Court of Appeal in Houghland v. R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd. [1962] 1 Q.B. 694 on the somewhat analogous case of a gratuitous bailee. Ormerod L.J. said, at page 698: 15 "For my part, I ......
-
Seino Merchants Singapore Pte Ltd v Porcupine Pte Ltd
...of duty that is imposed is ordinary care and not expert care unless expressly required. See Houghland v Rr Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd [1962] 1 QB 694 and Port Swettenham Authority v TW Wu & Co (M) Sdn Bhd [1979] AC 580. Excepting obvious cases, if a standard of special care is expected there ......
- Mervyn Linton v Donald Haynes and Samuel Facey
-
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Nos 4 & 5)
...them) that he had exercised all reasonable care during the period of the bailment (see Coldman v Hill [1919] 1 KB 443, 449; Houghland v R R Law Luxury Coaches Ltd [1962] 1 QB 694, 698–9 and 700). Like the banker, the bailee had the burden of proving the matters which will, if proved, enab......
-
Table of cases
...147 (Co. Ct.)..................................................................... 263 Houghland v. R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd., [1962] 2 All E.R. 159 (C.A.) ......................................................................... 432 Houghton v. Houghton (1964), [1965] 1 O.R. 481, [196......
-
Evidence 1
...v. Armels Transport Ltd. (1974) N.S.C.C. 169 at 172, Coldman v. Hill (1919) 1 K.B. 443 and Houghland v. R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd. (1962) 1 Q.B. 694 at 697-698. So long as the claim, as in the present action, is properly framed and worded, bailors do not escape liability unless they est......
-
Safekeeping
...it may be less in the circumstances. 19 6 Giblin v. McMullen (1869), L.R. 2 P.C. 317. 7 Houghland v. R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd ., [1962] 2 All E.R. 159 (C.A.). 8 Port Swettenham Authority v. T.W. Wu & Co (M.) Sdn. Bbd ., [1979] A.C. 580 (P.C.). 9 Giblin v. McMullen , above note 6. 10 Ro......