Piggot v The Eastern Counties Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1846 |
| Date | 02 June 1846 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 92
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 15 L. J. C. P. 235.
piggot v. the eastern counties railway company. June 2, 1846. [S. C. 15 L. J. C. P. 235.] In case against a railway company, for so negligently managing and conducting an engine, that certain premises of the plaintiff adjoining the line, were destroyed by fire emitted from the engine, evidence is admissible for the purpose of shewing that other engines belonging to the company, upon other occasions, in passing along the line, threw sparks or ignited matter to a sufficient distance to reach the building in question-without shewing the precise circumstances under which this occurred.- The fact of premises being fired by sparks emitted from a passing engine, is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the company, rendering it incumbent on them to shew that some precautions had been adopted by them, reasonably calculated to prevent such accidents. Case. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff was lawfully possessed of a certain cart-lodge of great value, to wit, of the value of 1001., then standing upon [230] certain land of the plaintiff, situate in the parish of Boreham, in the county of Essex, and near to a certain railway there then used by the defendants for the purpose of driving and (a) Post, 229 (b). (b) " There is a great diversity between a tenant at will and a tenant at sufferance; for tenant at will is always by right, and tenant at sufferance entereth by a lawful lease, and holdeth over by wrong." Co. Litt. 57 b. There seems to have been no tenancy at sufferance here. (c) Quaere, whether the memorandum itself did not create an immediate tenancy from year to year, convertible, by the execution of the lease, into a term for twenty-one years 1 3 C. B.231. PIGGOT V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY CO. 93 propelling, from time to time, in and along the same, certain steam-carriages and steam-engines, containing fire and igneous matter, to wit, in the parish aforesaid, &c.; that the defendants were also then, to wit, on, &c., in, &c. aforesaid, possessed of a certain steam-carriage and steam-engine, containing fire and igneous matter, which was then driven and propelled in and along the said railway, near to the said cart, lodge of the plaintiff, and was then under the care and management of the defendants, who were then and there managing and conducting the same; yet that the defendants then and there so carelessly, negligently, and unskilfully managed and conducted their said steam-carriage and steam-engine, and the said fire and igneous matter then therein contained as aforesaid, and used and applied so little care, precaution, and skill, in and about the keeping, holding, and retaining of the said fire and igneous matter in and upon the said steam-carriage and steam-engine, and in and about the providing, applying, and using the fit, proper, and necessary means and appliances for keeping, holding, and retaining the said fire and igneous matter in and upon the said steam-carriage and steam-engine, and in and about the guarding, hindering, and pre venting the said fire and igneous matter from escaping, passing, and flying from and out of the said steam-carriage and steam-engine, that, by and through the carelessness, negligence, unskilfulness, and improper conduct of the defendants in that behalf, and by and through the want of care, precaution, and skill of and in the defendants, in and about the keeping, holding, and retaining the said fire and igneous matter in and upon the said [231] steam-carriage and steam-engine, and in and about the providing, applying, and using the fit, proper, and necessary means and appliances for keeping, holding, and retaining the said fire and igneous matter in and upon the said steam- carriage and steam-engine, and in and about the guarding, hindering, and preventing the said fire and igneous matter from escaping, passing, and flying from and out of the said steam-carriage and steam-engine, divers sparks and particles of the said fire, and divers portions of the said igneous matter, then and there escaped, passed, and flew from, and out of the said steam-carriage and steam-engine of the defendants, in and upon the said cart-lodge of the plaintiff; and that, by means thereof, the said cart-lodge, then being of the value aforesaid, then became ignited and set on fire, and was thereupon, and by means of the premises, then and there wholly burnt, consumed, and destroyed; and, by means of the premises aforesaid, ten stables, ten cow-houses, ten pig-sties, ten granaries, ten other cart-lodges, ten other sheds, and ten other outbuildings of the plaintiff, then being of great value, to wit, of the value of 10001., and also divers goods and chattels, to wit, one hundred yards of palings, one hundred yards of fences, twenty gates, &c., of the plaintiff, then being of great value, to wit, of the value of 5001., and then respectively being in and upon and contiguous to the first- mentioned cart-lodge, then and there became ignited and set on fire, and were thereupon and by means of the premises then and there wholly burnt, consumed, and destroyed; and also, by means of the premises aforesaid, the plaintiff was then and there forced and obliged to pay, lay out, and expend divers sums of money, in the whole amounting to a large sum of money, to wit, 1001., in and about the extinguishing and putting out of the said fire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gore v Stannard (trading as Wyvern Tyres)
...some carelessness on the railway company's part for the emission of the sparks from their engine which set fire to his crop. Piggot v The Eastern Counties Railway Co (1846) 3 CB 229 was another case of sparks setting fire to the claimant's property. Tindal C.J. held that: "The defendants ar......
-
Marfell v The South Wales Railway Company
...trade, are bound to use more than ordinary caution to preserve the public from injury. Piffgot v. The Eastern, Counties Railway Company, 3 C. B. 229; Robert* v. The Great Western Railway Company, ante, vol. iv. p. 506; Paugftan v. The Tuff Fale Railway Company, 3 Hurlst. & N. 743, 5 Hurlst.......
-
Filliter v Phippard
...the negligence complained of. The materiality of the allegation of negligence appears from Piggot v. The Eastern Counties Railway Company (3 C. B. 229.) The negligence makes the defendant a wrongdoer. Kinglake Serjt. and Stock, contra. Sect. 86 of stat. 14 G. 3, c. 78, is general in its app......
-
Hudson v Slade and Others
...Middleton v. Earned, 4 Exch Rep. 241. It is like a case of primd facie evidence of negligence ; Piggott v Eastern Counties Railway Company, 3C B 229; and see 5 H &N 216. 3F. &F. 391. HUDSON V. SLADE 175 taking it by force, even after the plaintiff had it in his pocket. Qticere, whether, eve......