Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 1955 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1955] EWCA Civ J1209-2 |
| Date | 09 December 1955 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1955] EWCA Civ J1209-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Singleton
Lord Justice Jenkins
Lord Justice Parker
LORD JUSTICE SINGLTON: This is an appeal from a judgment of
I agree. So far as the plaintiff's claim is a it to me that he has wholly failed to make outhis case. As the did all that could reasonably be to prevent children meddling with the disused mstorech. The tank was , no doubt as a safety precaution, though it seems to be open to question whether in fact the emptying of the tank may not have made it dangerous than it would have been . that as is may, the tank was empty. That at any rate had the advantage of the vehicle, so that children could not set it in motion, and it prevented their getting patrol from the tank, which they night have done if the tank had been full. The defendants also took proper steps to see that the cap was on the orifice of the petrol tank when they carried out inspections, which they seem to have done at sufficient intervals. Whenever they saw children on the site they shouted at them and drove them away. They seem to have complained both to the school and to the police that children were making a nuisance of themselves on their vehicle park.
The happening which brought about the accident was one which the defendants could not reasonably have been expected to foresee. As my Lord has pointed out, it involved not only the removal by some mischievous person of the cap on the orifice of the tank, but also the dropping by some person of a lighted match into the tank, for that must be taken, I think, to have been in fact happened. Those two acts to me to be wholly beyond anything which the defendants could reasonably have anticipated.
As to the alternative conto that the defendants are even if they were not negligent, on the principle of and , I am prepared to accept
I agree that this appeal must he dismissed.
LORD JUSTICE PACKER: I agree and I would only add a word in deference to Mr. King-Hamilton's argument on his submission in regard to the rule in Rylands and . Though the decision in v. (1919(2) King's Bench, page 43) has been the subject of some criticism see the speech of Lord Porter in Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd., 1947 Appeal Cases, page 157, at page 176), it is still binding upon this courts. Accordingly I feel hound to approach the matter upon the "basis that the facts here bring the case within the rule in Rylands and Fletoher: nor do I think it is open to this court to hold that the rule only applies to damage to adjoining land or to a proprietary interest in land and not to personal injury. It is true that in Read v. Lyons Lord Ma, Lord Porter and Lord Simonds all doubted whether the rule extended to cover personal injuries, but the final decision in the matter was expressly left over and, as the matter stands at present, I think we are bound to held that the defendants are liable in this case, quite apart from negligence, unless they can bring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, (2003) 315 N.R. 123 (HL)
...33, 51, 83, 92]. Read v. Lyons (J.) & Co., [1947] A.C. 156, refd to. [paras. 9, 34, 52, 76, 95]. Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd., [1956] 1 W.L.R. 85, refd to. [para. Shiffman v. Order of St. John of Jerusalem, [1936] 1 All E.R. 557, refd to. [paras. 9, 35]. Miles v. Forest Rock Granit......
-
Emanuel (H. & N.) Ltd v Greater London Council
...namely, the clearing of the site: and it is beyond belief that the L.C.C. had no means of controlling his activities. In Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd. ( 1956 1 W.L.R. 85) Lord Justice Jenkins said at page 90: "the stranger is regarded as a person over whose acts the occupier of the lan......
-
Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
...This proposition has not been authoritatively affirmed by any decision at the highest level. It was left open by Parker LJ in Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd [1956] 1 WLR 85, 92, and is inconsistent with decisions such as Shiffman v Order of St John of Jerusalem [1936] 1 All ER 557 and Mi......
-
LMS International Ltd and Others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and Others
...as having been started accidentally: see Musgrove (supra); Spicer v Smee [1946] 1 ALL ER 489 and Perry v Kendricks Transport Limited [1956] 1 ALL ER 154. 29 In Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England [1967] 2 QB 530, Mackenna J found that, in circumstances where the Defendants had a store of ......
-
Mr Fletcher as the Quintessential Nigerian: Could a More In-Depth Analysis of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Reveala Uniquely Nigerian Tort?
...Western Utilities Ltd vLondon Guarantee and Accident Co Ltd [1936] AC 108; Box v Jubb (1879) 4 Ex D 76;Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd [1956] 1WLR 85; Prosser v Levy [1955] 1 WLR 1224.6Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) 70 Lt 547; Dunne v North Western GasBoard [1964] 2 QB 806; Geddis v P......