Martinez and Another v Gerber
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1841 |
| Date | 26 May 1841 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 1069
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 3 Scott, N. R. 386; 10 L. J. C. P. 314; 5 Jur. 463. Distinguished, Alton v. Midland Railway, 1865, 19 C. B. (N. S.) 237.
3 MAN. &G. 89. MABTINEZ V. GERBER 1069 martinez and another v. gerber. May 26, 1841. [S. C. 3 Scott, N. K. 386 ; 10 L. J. C. P. 314; 5 Jur. 463. Distinguished, Alton v. Midland Railway, 1865, 19 C. B. (N. S.) 237.] Case, per quod servitium amisit, may be maintained by the master, although the injury done to the servant was not direct, but consequential, and the servant could not have maintained an action of trespass for such injury, but must have sued in case.-In case per quod servitium amisit, a general allegation of service is sufficient, without stating that the servant was hired, or that he was to receive a salary. Case. The first count of the declaration stated, that one Gross, before and at the time, &c. was, and from thence hitherto had continued and still was, the servant and traveller of the plaintiffs; and that Goss on, &c. was possessed of a certain phaeton, and of a certain horse then drawing the same, and in which phaeton [89] Goss was then riding along a highway; and the defendant was also then possessed of a gig and horse, then under his care and management, proceeding along the said highway; and that the defendant so carelessly, negligently, and improperly drove his said gig and horse, that, by the carelessness, &c. of the defendant, the said gig then ran and struck with great violence against the said phaeton; * and thereby Goss was then thrown with great violence out of his said phaeton upon the ground there ; and by means of the premises, Goss was then greatly bruised, and became and was sick, disabled, and unable to attend to the necessary business of the plaintiffs, about which he was employed at the time, &c., and so remained from thence hitherto; during all which time, by reason of the premises, the plaintiffs lost the service of Goss, and all advantage which otherwise would have accrued to them from such service : and also, by reason thereof, the plaintiffs were obliged to employ, and did necessarily employ, one Gassiot, during the period aforesaid, as their traveller and servant instead of Goss, and became liable to pay, and did afterwards, to wit, on, &c. necessarily pay, to Gassiot a large sum of money, to wit, 2001., for the expenses and wages of Gassiot as such traveller and servant during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Hambrook
...the family, as many did in those days, perhaps he slept under the counter. 14 Then in 1841 came the case of ( Martinez v. Gerber 3 Manning and Granger, page 68) which looks at first sight as if it was an extension. A master was allowed an action for loss of services for his "servant and tr......
- Attorney-General (Nsw) v Perpetual Trustee Company (Ltd)
- Commissioner for Railways (Nsw) v Scott
-
Attorney General and Another v Ryan's Car Hire Ltd
... ... The claim was " per quod servitium amisit ," Martinez v. Gerber (2) and Hall v. Hollander (3) being relied on, and Carolan v. Minister for Defence (1) being cited as an authority that a soldier (and ... ...