Marriott v Stanley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1840 |
| Date | 21 November 1840 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 458
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 1 Scott, N. R. 392; 4 Jur. 320.
[568] marriott v. stanley. June 13, 1840. [S. C. 1 Scott, N. E. 392; 4 Jur. 320.] In an action on the case for an injury which the plaintiff had sustained from being thrown down upon iron instruments placed by the defendant in the highway, contrary to the common law, and to the provisions of a local act of parliament, the defence set up (a) was, negligence on the part of the plaintiff, of which negligence no distinct evidence was given. The judge left it to the jury to say, whether the plaintiff had been so deficient in reasonable and ordinary care that he had brought the accident upon himself.-A verdict having been foand for the defendant, a rule for a new trial was refused on the ground of misdirection; but it was granted, on payment of costs, as upon a verdict against evidence, and was afterwards made absolute. Case. The declaration stated that on the 15th of October 1839, the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully set, placed, and exposed to sale in a certain public street in the city of Peterborough, in the county of Northampton, called, &c. being a common public highway for all persons to go, pass, and repass, on foot, on horseback, and with carriages, every year and at all times of the year, at their free will and pleasure, divers cutting and sharp-pointed tools and implements, improper and dangerous to be set, placed, and exposed in such public street and highway, to wit, scythes, ploughs, pitchforks, harrows, sickles, and divers other dangerous implements and articles, and wrongfully, &c. kept and continued the same so there set, placed, and exposed to sale, for a long space of time, to wit, twelve hours then next following, and while divers persons were going, passing, and repassing on foot, on horseback, &c. in the said public street and highway, there, to the great danger and annoyance of the said persons, and contrary to the form of a certain act of parliament made and passed in 30 G-. 3, intituled "An Act for paving and otherwise improving the city and township of Peterborough." That during the said time, while the said implements and articles were so wrongfully, &c. in the said public street and highway, being so there wrongfully set, &c. and kept, &c. during that time by the defendant as aforesaid, to wit, on, &c. the plaintiff was [569] lawfully in the said public street and highway there on foot, at the head of a certain horse of the plaintiff then harnessed to and drawing a certain cart of the plaintiff, and was then holding the said horse by the bridle, and endeavouring to restrain and prevent the said horse from running away with the said cart in the said public street and highway there, which the said horse, having been then accidentally frightened, was then endeavouring to do; and thereupon in so endeavouring to restrain and prevent the said horse from running away with the said cart as aforesaid, (which the plaintiff then might and could have done without the happening to him of the injuries hereinafter mentioned, or any of them, or any part thereof, if the said implements and articles had not been so then wrongfally and unlawfully in the said public (a) Under a plea of not guilty; as to which, see E. H. 4 W. 4, post, 570 (). 1 MAN. & G. 570. MARRIOTT V. STANLEY 459 street and highway there as aforesaid,) he the plaintiff then to wit, on, &c. while the said implements and articles were so wrongfully set, &c. in the said public street and highway there as aforesaid, by reason and in' consequence of the same being so then there set, &c. and from no other cause whatsoever, was unavoidably thrown down, and the plaintiff struck and was dashed with great force and violence among, upon, and against the said implements and articles, and was thereby then greatly and grievously cut, pierced, lacerated, wounded, bruied, and injured, whereby the plaintiff then became and was sick, hurt, lame, and maimed, insomuch that his life was then greatly despaired of, and the plaintiff thereby remained and continued so sick, &c. for a long space of time, to wit, from the time of the happening of the said injuries hitherto, and by means of the premises the plaintiff is likely to remain and continue a cripple for the remainder of his life, and also by means of the premises, the plaintiff, during all the time last aforesaid, not only suffered and underwent great pain and anguish, and was put to [570] a great expense, to wit, fec. in and about the providing and procuring for himself, of medical and surgical advice, &c. and in and about the endeavouring to be cured of, &c. but also during all the time last aforesaid the plaintiff, by means of the premises, was hindered and prevented from following and attending to his trades and businesses of a carpenter and innkeeper, which during that time he carried on and still carries on, and thereby lost and was deprived of divers great gains, &c. and the plaintiff, by means of the said premises, has been and is otherwise greatly injured and damnified; to the damage of the plaintiff of 10001. Plea : not guilty (a)1. At the trial before Bosanquet J. at the last Spring assizes for the county of Northampton, the following facts appeared:-On the 15th of October, 1839, being the market-day at Peterborough, the defendant, an ironmonger, placed ploughshares and other implements in the public street in front of his house. About six in the evening the plaintiff was unloading his cart in front of his house, which nearly adjoins that of the defendant. Whilst so engaged, a pony, by which the cart was drawn, was attacked by a fierce dog, and ran off in the direction of the defendant's house. The plaintiff caught the bridle in his hand, and was running at the pony's head, endeavouring to keep him in. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company
...to [750] the injury he suffered , he is therefore not entitled to recover : Butfafield v Forrester (11 East, 60), Marnot v. Stanley (1 Man & G. 568) It would hardly be contended that the owner of a barge on the Thames, overloaded, and in that state swamped by the waves caused by a steamer p......