Jane Ellis against The Sheffield Gas Consumers Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1853 |
| Date | 07 November 1853 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 955
COURTS OF QUEENS BENCH AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 2 C. L. R. 249; 23 L. J. Q. B. 42; 18 Jur. 146; 2 W. R. 19. Not applied, Sadler v. Henlock, 1855, 4 El. & Bl. 577. Applied, Hole v. Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway, 1861, 6 H. & N. 497.
2 EL. & BL 767. ELLIS V.SHEFFIELD GAS CONSUMERS COMPANY 955 [767] jane ellis against the sheffield gas consumers company. Monday, November 7th, 1853. Though a person employing a contractor to do a lawful act is not responsible for the negligence or misconduct of the contractor or his servants in executing that act, yet, if the act itself is wrongful, the employer is responsible for the wrong so done by the contractor or his servants, and is liable to third persons who sustain damage from the doing of that wrong. [S. C. 2 C. L. R. 249; 23 L. J. Q. B. 42; 18 Jur. 146 ; 2 W. E. 19. Not applied, Sadkr v. Herdock, 1855, 4 El. & Bl. 577. Applied, Hole v. Stilingbourne and Sheerness Railway, 1861, 6 H. & N. 497.] Count for unlawfully digging a trench in a public street and highway, and heaping up stones and earth, excavated from the said trench, upon the said street and highway, so as to obstruct it, and to be a common public nuisance; whereby plaintiff, lawfully passing along the said public street and highway, fell over the said stones and earth, so heaped up as aforesaid, and broke her arm. Plea : Not guilty. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Wightman J., at the last York Assizes, it appeared that the defendant! had made a contract with persona trading under the firm of Watson, Brothers, of Sheffield, by which Watson, Brothers, contracted to open trenches along the streets of Sheffield in order that the defendants might lay gas pipes there, and afterwards to fill up the trenches and make good the surface and flagging. Watson, Brothers, did accordingly, by their servants, open the trenches along one of the streets in question, and, after the pipes were laid, proceeded to fill up the trench and restore the flagging. In doing so, the servants of Watson, Brothers, carelessly left a heap of stones and earth upon the footway ; and the plaintiff, passing along the street, fell over them and broke her arm. Neither the defendants nor Watson, Brothers, had any legal excuse for breaking open the street in the manner described, which was a public [768] nuisance. It was objected, for the defendants, that the cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shea v The River Bride and Kilcrea Drainage Board
...Gray v. PullenENR 5 B. & S. 970. Blake v. ThirstENR 2 H. & C. 20. Bower v. PeateELR 1 Q. B. Div. 321. Ellis v. Sheffield Gas CompanyENR 2 E. & B. 767. Angus v. DaltonELR 4 Q. B. Div. 162. Overton v. FreemanENR 11 C. B. 867. Allen v. Hayward 7 Q. B. 960. Knight v. FoxENR 5 Exch. 721. Peachy ......
-
Die Prokureursorde van die Oranje-Vrystaat v Schoeman
...woorde is onlangs met goedkeuring aangehaal deur E MULLER, A.R., in Hassim v Incorporated Law Society of Natal, 1977 (2) SA 757 (AA) op bl. 767 - 'n Versuim om die bepalings van art. 33 van die Toelatingswet, 23 van 1934, of die Verordeninge van die betrokke Orde streng na te kom het welisw......
-
Gray and Wife against Pullen and Hubble
...the negligence which was the primary cause of the accident had nothing to do with the contract. Ellis v. The Sheffield Gas Company (2 E. & B. 767) is an authority for the defendant. On Overlon v. Freeman (11 C. B. 867) being cited, Lord Campbell says, p. 768, " In that case the parties made......
-
Atkinson v King
...D. 321. Pickard v. SmithENR 10 C. B. N. S. 470. Hole v. Sittingbourne Railway CompanyENR 6 H. & N. 488. Ellis v. Sheffield Gas CompanyENR 2 E. & B. 767. Gray v. PullenENR 5 B. & S. 970. Bonomi v. BackhouseENR 9 H. L. C. 503. Gandy v. JubberENR 5 B. & S. 485. Corby v. HillENR 4 C. B. N. S. 5......