Priestley and Fowler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1030
EXCHE. OF PLEAS.
S. C. M. & H. 305; 7 L. J. Ex. 42; 1 Jur. 987. Discussed, Bartonshill Coal Company v. Reid, 1858, 3 Macq. 265; Clarke v. Holmes, 1862, 7 H. & N. 946; Thomas v. Quatermaine, 1887, 18 Q. B. D. 692; Groves v. Lord Wimborne, [1898], 2 Q. B. 410; Johnson v. Lindsay, [1891] A. C. 383. Followed, Tunney v. Midland Railway Company, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 296; Fowler v. Lock, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 278: see on appeal, L. R. 9 C. P. 751; Lovell v. Howell, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 168; Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Company, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 559: affirmed, 2 C. P. D. 205; Woodley v. Metropolitan District Railway Company, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 397; Hedley v. Pinkney and Sons Steamship Company, [1892] 1 Q. B. 66. Distinguished, Bland v. Ross: The Julia, 1860, 14 Moore, P. C. 230. Applied, Wigmore v. Jay, 1850, 5 Ex. 357. Referred to, Riley v. Baxendale, 1861, 6 H. & N. 448; Turner v. Great Eastern Railway Company, 1875, 33 L. T. 432; Swainson v. North Eastern Railway Company, 1878, 3 Ex. D. 343; Griffiths v. Earl of Dudley, 1882, 9 Q. B. D. 365; Murphy v. Wilson, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 24: affirmed, 12 Q. B. D. 208; Griffiths v. London and St. Katherine Docks Company, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 260; The Petrel, [1893] P. 323; Tozeland v. West Ham Union, [1906] 1 K. B. 543.
REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURTS of EXCHEQUER and EX~ CHEQUER CHAMBER, from Michaelmas Term, 1 VICTORIA, to Easter Term, i VECTORISE, both inclusive. By R. MEESON, Esq., and W. N. WELSBY, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barristers-at-Law. Vol. III. London, 1838. [1] i ebports of gakks argued and determined in the courts of exchequer, gf and exchequer chamber, michaelmas term, 1 victoria;. priestley v. fowler. Exch. of Pleas. 1837.-Declaration in case stated that the plaintiff w;is a servant of the defendant in his trade of a butcher ; that the defendant had desired and directed the plaintiff', so being his servant, to go with and take certain goods of the defendant in a certain van of the defendant then used by him, and conducted by another of his servants, in carrying goods for hire upon a certain journey; that the plaintiff, in pursuance of such desire and direction, accordingly commenced and was proceeding, and being carried and Conveyed by the said van, with the said goods ; and it became the defendant's duty to use proper care that the van should be in a proper state of repair, and should nob be overloaded, and that the plaintiff should be safely and securely carried thereby : nevertheless that the defendant did not use proper care that the van should not be overloaded, or that the plaintiff should be safely and securely carried; in consequence of the neglect of which duties, the van gave way and broke down, and the plaintiff was thrown to the ground, and his thigh fractured : '-Held, on motion in arrest of judgment, after verdict for the plaintiff, first, ,that it was sufficiently to be collected from the declaration that the defendant directed the plaintiff to go in the van ; but, secondly, that even in that case, the (action was,not maintainable. [S. Q. M. $ H.i.305 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 42; 1 Jur. 987. Discussed, Bartons/till Coal Company v.\Eeid, 1858, 3 Macq. 265; Clarke v. Holme*, 1862, 7 H. & N. 946; Thomas v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vandyke v Fender
-
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company v English
...of collaborateur, is of comparatively recent origin. In the law of England it can hardly be traced further back than Priestly v. Fowler, ( 3 M. & W. 1), which was decided in 1837. It was rejected by the Courts of Scotland until 1858, when, for the first time in either country, it was fully......
-
R v National Insurance Commissioners, ex parte Hudson ; R v Secretary of State for Social Services
...the pretence was tacitly dropped that the rule was pre-existing: for example, cases like Shelley's Case, Merryweather v. Nixon or Priestley v. Fowler were (rightly) regarded as new departures in the law. Nevertheless, the theory, however, unreal, had its value—in limiting the sphere of lawm......
-
Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd
... ... This theory is founded on the maxim: Qui facit per alium facit per se ... Thus in Middleton v. Fowler (1699) 1 Salkeld 282 Chief Justice Molt said: "No master is chargeable with the acts of his servants, but where he acts in execution of the ... ...
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...average level of education of an employee in that particular job and the status of that job: ibid. 125 Priestley v Fowler (1837) 3 M&W 1, 150 ER 1030; Bartonshill Coal Co v Reid(1858) 3 Macq 266 (HL); Bartonshill Coal Co v Maguire(1858) 3 Macq 300 (HL); Wilson v Merry(1868) LR 1 SC & Div 32......
-
"That Is Not How the Common Law Works": Paths to Tort Liability for Harassment.
...31 DLR (4th) 481. (122) [1993] 1 SCR 12, 99 DLR (4th) 577. (123) Piresferreira, supra note 32 at para 62. (124) See Priestly v Fowler (1837), 150 ER 1030 at 1032 (Ex) (arguing that allowing liability "would be an encouragement to the servant to omit that diligence and caution which he is in......
-
STATUTE AND THEORIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY.
...to have taken such risk vis-a-vis the employer). On the defence of common employment, see also Priestley v Fowler (1837) 3 M & W 1; 150 ER 1030, 1032-3 (Lord Abinger (40) (1940) 66 CLR 344. (41) Ibid 360. Note, however, that where there is 'an immediate duty lying on the Crown' (for exa......
-
Tort law, risk, and technological innovation in England.
...L Rev 50; Lobban, supra note 6 at 1001-32. (67) Engels, supra note 66 at 253-54. (68) Morgan, supra note 43 at 51. (69) 3 M & W 1, 150 ER 1030 (70) Simpson, supra note 15 at 128 (in chapter 5, "A Case of First Impression: Priestly v Fowler (1837)"). (71) Ibid at 113. (72) Ibid. (73) Ibi......