Luxford v Large
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1833 |
| Date | 03 February 1833 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 1036
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Sitting in London, after Hilary Term, 1833, before Lord Chief Justice Denman. Feb. 3rd, 1833. luxford v. large. (In an action against the captain of a steam vessel for swamping a loaded wherry on the nver by a swell produced by a too rapid rate of passage, the jury, to find for the plaintiff, must be satisfied that the mischief was occasioned by the swell alone : and if they think it doubtful whether it was or not, or think that the plaintiff contributed to the injury he sustained by his own improper conduct, either in mismanaging or overloading the boat, they must find their verdict for the defendant.) The declaration stated, that the plaintiff, before and at the time &c., was lawfully possessed oi a certain boat or [422] vessel of great value, then lawfully being in the river Thames, &c,, and the defendant was then the captain and commander of a certain steam boat or vessel, then also being in the river Thames, &c., and then and there had the care, management, and government of the same , yet the defendant, not regarding his duty, tc., whilst the said boat or vessel of the said plaintiff was so in the river Thames, &c , so carelessly, negligently, and improperly behaved and conducted himself, in and about the management and government of the said steam boat or vessel, and so carelessly, negligently, and improperly managed and governed the same, that by means and in consequence of the carelessness, negligence, and improper conduct of tie defendant in that behalf, the said steam boat then and there wrongfully, negligently, and improperly was propelled, and did sail and go in the said river Thames so rapidly, quickly, and improperly, that by means and in consequence thereof, the said steam boat or vessel then and there caused and occasioned the waters of a certain part of the said river Thames to became, and the same thereby then and there did become, and were, so agitated, rough, uneven, and dangerous, that thereby the said boat or vessel of the said plaintiff, then being in the said part of the said river Thames where the waters thereof were so agitated and dangerous, as aforesaid, then and there became, and was filled with water, swamped, and sunk, &c. ; and by means of the premises, the plaintiff being in his said boat when the same was filled with water as aforesaid, was greatly wetted, and in great danger of being drowned, and, in being (e)1 2 M. & S. 88. That case was decided on the Stamp Act, 48 Geo. III. c. 149 ; but the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doyle v Kinahan
...R. 377. Davies v. MannENR 10 M. & W. 548. Scott v. Dublin and Wicklow Railway CompanyUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 393, 398. Luxford v. LargeENR 5 Car. & P. 421. Woolf v. BeardENR 8 Car. & P. 373. Morrison v. The General Steam Navigation CompanyENR 8 Exch. 733. Holden v. The Liverpool Navigation Comp......
-
The Trustees of The Charities of Joseph Evans v The Governor and Company of The Bank of Ireland
...Cr. Cas. 486. Flower v. AdamENR 2 Taunt. 314. Hawkins v. CooperENR 8 Car. & P. 473. Woolf v. BeardENR 8 C. & P. 373. Luxfrd v. LargeENR 5 Car. & P. 421. Buttrfield v. ForresterENR 11 East, 60. Russel v. langstaffeENR 2 Doug. 514. Lickbarrow v. MasonUNK 2 Term Rep. 63. Pluckwell v. WilsonENR......