Pickard v Smith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 535
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 4 L. T. 470. Adopted, Gray v. Pullen, 1864, 5 B. & S. 985. Approved, Mersey Docks v, Gibbs, 1866, L. R. 1 H. L. 114. Distinguished, Welfare v. London and Brighton Railway Company, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 699. Applied, John v. Bacon, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 441; Bower v. Peate, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 327. Approved, Goslin v. Agricultural Hall Company, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 494, Considered, Whitely v. Pepper, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 276. Referred to, Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 829. Approved, Hughes v. Percival, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 446. Adopted, Hardaker v. Idle District Council, [1896] 1 Q. B. 342. See Penney v. Wimbledon Urban District Council, [1899] 2 Q. B. 72; The Snark, [1900] P. 110.
[470] pickard v. smith. 'May 29th, 1861. [S. C. 4 L. T. 470. Adopted, Gray v. Pidlen, 1864, 5 B. & S. 985. Approved, Mersey Docks v, Gibbs, 1866, L. R. 1 H. L. 114. Distinguished, Welfare v. London and Brighton Railway Company, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 699. Applied, John v. Bacon, 1870, L. R. 5 G P. 441 ; Bower v. Peate, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 327. Approved, Goslin v. Agricultural Hall Company, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 494, Considered, Whitdy v. Pepper, L877, 2 Q. B. D. 276. Referred to, Daltm v. Angtts, 1881, 6 App. Gas. 829. Approved, Hughes v. Perdval, 1883, 8 App. Gas. 446. Adopted, Hardalcer v. Idle District Council, [1896] 1 Q. B. 342. See Penney v. Wimbledon Urban District Council, [1899] 2 Q. B. 72 ; The Snark, [1900] P. 110.] Refreshment-rooms and a coal-cellar at a railway station were let by the company to one S., the opening for putting coals into the cellar being on the arrival platform. A train coming in whilst the servants of a coal-merchant were shooting coals into the cellar for S., the plaintiff, a passenger, whilst passing (as the jury found) in the usual way out of the station, without any fault of his own, fell into the cellar opening, which the coal-merchant's servants had negligently left insufficiently guarded : - Held, that S., the occupier of the refreshment-rooms and cellar, was responsible for : this negligence. - And semble, - per Williams, J., - that the railway company also would be liable, but not the coal-merchant. Thialwas an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for an injury sustained by him byifalling into a hole in the platform of the Manchester station of the Liverpool and Manchester railway. The cause was tried before Blackburn, J. , at the last Winter assizes at Liverpool. It appeared' that, on the 19th of April last, the plaintiff was a passenger by the Liverpool train which arrived at Manchester at about 8.40 p.m., and was proceeding along tie platform on the usual way out, having a cloak across his shoulders and a bag in hia hand, when he suddenly fell into a hole in the floor, bruising and hurting himself considerably. 1 Thsrhol^ into which the plaintiff so fall was an opening or trap-door in the platform, forming thei entrance to the coal-cellar of the refreshment-rooms attached to the station, which tfap-tloor was always kept closed except when coals were being put into the cellar. The defendant was the occupier of the refreshment-rooms and cellar as tenant qf the company ; and at the time the accident happened coals were being lowered into the cellar for hia use, and by his order, by the servants of the coal-merchant from whom he had ordered them. The plaintiff swore that at the time he fell into the hole there was nothing to indicate danger, and no protection, nor any person guarding the hole. On the other hand, the servants of the coal-merchant who were employed on the occasion swore that proper protection was placed over the hole and repeated warnings given as the passengers from the train thronged [471] by, and that there was plenty of light to enable the plaintiff to see where he was going. On the part of the defendant it was submitted that the action was improperly brought against the present defendant ; and that, if maintainable at all, it could only be against the company, or against the coal-merchant by whose servants the trap-door was opened. The learned judge intimated an opinion that the occupier of the cellar and hole was liable if the hole was not properly guarded when being used for him in putting in his 536 PICKARD V. SMITH 10 0. B. (N. S.) Z- coals : and he left it to the jury to say whether the hole was so protected as it reasonably ought to have been in such a place, or whether there was negligence; and whether or not the plaintiff could by reasonable care have avoided the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v Muddiman
...of another unless that act can be traced to them in the course of their employment. As was stated by Williams J. in Pickard v. Smith (1861) 10 CB NS 470:- ‘…if an independent contractor is employed to do a lawful act, and in the course of the work he or his servants commit some causal act o......
-
Coe against Wise, Clerk to the Middle Level Drainage Commissioners
...Alston v. Scales (9 Bing. 3), Pallisler v. The Mayor of Gravesend (9 C. B. 774), Kendall v. King (17 C. B. 483), Pidcard v. Smith (10 C. B. N. S. 470), Whitehouse v. Fellowes (Id. 765), Clothier 898 COB V. WISE BB.4tS.M9. of Manchester (I H. & N. 59; in error, 2 Id. 204), Gfibbs v. The Trus......
- Rylands and Another v Fletcher
-
Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association
...of hazards in a public place, generally in circumstances which apart from statutory authority would constitute a public nuisance: see Pickard v Smith (1861) 10 CB (NS) 470 (which appears to be the first reported case of a non-delegable duty), Penny v Wimbledon Urban District Council [1898]......
-
Accountability of public authorities through contextualized determinations of vicarious liability and non-delegable duties.
...losses through prices for their goods and services. See Fleming, supra note 15 at 433. (35) Pickard v. Smith (1861) 10 C.B. (N.S.) 470, 142 E.R. 535 (36) Dalton v. Angus & Co. (1881) 6 App. Cas. 740, [1881-85] ALL E.R. 1 [Dalton, cited to App. Cas.]. An employer contracted out some cons......
-
Liability for institutional child sexual assault: where does Lepore leave Australia?
...with child sexual assault: ibid 467. See below Part IV. (58) Ibid 473-4. (59) Ibid 446. (60) See Pickard v Smith (1861) 10 CB NS 672; 142 ER 535; Bower v Peate (1876) 1 QBD 321; Dalton v Henry Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740; Hughes v Percival (1883) 8 App Cas (61) See Prue Vines, 'New ......