Pym, Administratrix, against The Great Northern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 1863 |
| Date | 15 June 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 122 E.R. 508
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 32 L. J. Q. B. 377; 10 Jur. N. S. 199; 11 W. R. 922. Referred to, Seward v. Vera Cruz, 1884, 10 App. Cas. 70; Grand Trunk Railway of Canada v. Jennings, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 804. Observations adopted, Wolfe v. Great Northern (Ireland) Railway, 1890, 26 L. R. Ir. 552. Referred to, Clark v. London General Ominibus Company, [1906] 2 K. B. 658.
in the exchequer chamber. pym, Administratrix, against the great northern railway company. Monday, June 15th, 1863.-9 & 10 Viet. o. 93, Damage. Reasonable probability of _ pecuniary benefit. Solatium, Change of distribution of property.-1. In an action under stat. 9 & 10 Viet. c. 93, to recover damages for the death of a relative killed by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another person, the loss of the reasonable probability of pecuniary benefit from the continuance of the life of the deceased is a sufficient damage to maintain thu action.-2. The statute gives to the personal representative a cause of action beyond that which the deceased would have if he had survived, and based on a different principle.-3. Con-ceasum, that in such an action to compensation^can be given by way of solatium for grief or loss of society of the deceased.-4. The remedy given by this statute is to individuals, not to a class; and therefore, on the death of a person whoae income arose from land and personalty independent of any exertion of his own, no portion of which was lost to his family by his death, the action is maintainable if in consequence of that death the mode of its distribution among the members is changed. [S. C. 32 L. J. Q. B. 377 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 199 ; 11 W. R. 922. Referred to, Seioanl v. Vera Cruz, 1884, 10 App. Gas. 70; Cfrand Trunk Railway of Canada v. Jennings, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 804. Observations adopted, Wolfe v. Great Northern (Ireland) Railway, 1890, 26 L. R. Ir. 552. Referred to, Clark v. London General Omnibus Company, [1906] 2 K. B. 658.] This was an appeal from the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, reported 2 B. & S. 759. The case wag as follows. Thig was an action brought under the provisions of the [397] 9 & 10 Viet. c. 93, by the plaintiff, as the widow and administratrix of Francis Leslie Pym, against the defendants, who are carriers of passengers upon a railway called The Great Northern Railway, for the loss alleged to have been sustained by her and by his children from his death, which was caused by an accident on the defendants' railway, occaaioned by the negligence of one of the servants of the defendants. The plaintiff by her declaration alleged that the defendants were carriers of passengers upon the railway, and that, whilst Francis Leslie Pym was being carried by the defendants as a passenger ou it, he was by and through the negligence of the defendants injured, and afterwards and within twelve calendar months next before the suit died, and that the plaintiff sued as such administratrix for the benefit of herself as his widow, and also for the benefit of his children, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. Tha defendants pleaded that they were not guilty, and upon that plea the plaintiff took isaue. At the trial, before Cockburn C.J., it appeared that Francis Leslie Pym was, on the 23rd April, 1860, a passenger by the defendants' railway, and that whilst he was such passenger an accident occurred upon the railway arising from the negligence of one of the defendants' servants, whereby Francis Leslie Pym was injured and died the same day. The deceased, at the time of his death, was forty-one years of age, and died intestate, leaving a widow, the plaintiff, and nine children, the eldest agad eleven years, and the youngest aged two mouths. The deceased was tenant for life of certain estates in [398] land under a resettlement of family property, which had been made at the time of his marriage, and was also seized in fee of other estates subject to certain charges thereon. The net income arising from the whole of these estates amounted to 38691. a year. 4 B. & S 399. PYM V. THE GREAT NORTHKRN RAILWAY CO. 509 By the provisions of this re-settlement, at his death the plaintiff became entitled to a jointure of 10001. a year for her life, charged upon the re-settled estates, and the eight younger children to a provision of 8001. a year, being the interest at 41. per cent, of a sum of 20,0001. charged also upon the re-settled estates. Subject to the above charges these estates, upon the death of Francis Leslie Pym, passed under the entail created by the re-settleraent to his eldest son in fee. The unsettled estates, subject to the existing charges thereon, passed to the eldest son as heir-at-law. The deceased also left personal property to the amount of 33901, of which the plaintiff at his death became entitled to 11301., and the nine children to the sum of 2501. each. He was of no profession or business, and had no other income or property. The Lord Chief Justice directed the jury that to entitle the plaintiff to their verdict they must be satisfied not only that the death of Francis Leslie Pym was caused by the negligence of the defendants, but also that the plaintiff and her children, or some of them, had sustained some pecuniary loss of damage by such death. And he further directed them, that if, after making allowance for what the deceased would naturally have expended on himself, they thought that a portion of his income, beyond the 18001. a year, to which his widow and eight younger children became, entitled at his death, would have been from time to time set aside [399] by him for the benefit of his family, or appropriated to their education and advancement in life, and would thus have secured to them advantages which by his death they had lost, that would constitute such pecuniary loss and damage as, coupled with the death of the deceased having been caused by the negligence of the defendants, would enable them to find a, verdict for the plaintiff. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at 13,0001.; and apportioned that sum, viz. 10001. for the widow and 15001. for each of the eight younger children. At the close of the case, and before the Lord Chief Justice directed the jury, the counsel for the defendants contended that neither the plaintiff nor any of the children had sustained any such loss or damage as was necessary to maintain the action, and that there- was no evidence of any such loss or damage which ought to be submitted to the jury; and the Lord Chief Justice thereupon reserved those points and gave leave to the defendants to move to enter the verdict for them or a nonsuit. In Michaelmas Term, 1861, the defendants obtained a rule to shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a verdict entered for the defendants, or why a nonsuit should not be entered on the ground that there was no cause of action established by the evidence, or why a new trial should not be had on the ground that the damages were excessive : which rule was afterwards discharged ; the plaintiff consenting that the damages given on the verdict should be reduced from 13,0001. to 90001., viz., 10001. for the plaintiff and 10001. for each of the eight younger children. The question for the decision of this Court was, [400] Whether, under the circumstances set forth in the case, there was evidence which the Lord Chief Justice ought to have submitted to the jury that the plaintiff or any of the children had sustained any such loss or damage as was necessary to maintain the action. This appeal was heard by Erie C.J., Pollock C.B., Williams and Willes JJ. and Bramwell and Channell B.B. Stat. 9 & 10 Viet. c. 93, entitled "An Act for compensating the families of persons killed by accidents:" after reciting in sect. 1 that " no action at law is now maintainable against a person who by his wrongful act, neglect, or default may have caused the death of another person, and it is oftentimes right and expedient that the wrongdoer in such case should be answerable in damages for the injury so caused by him," enacts : " That whensoever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default, and the act, neglect, or default is such as would (if death had not enaued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of ihe person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony." Sect. 2. "Every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and child of the person whose death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor or administrator of the person deceased ; and in 510 PYM V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. 4 B. & 3.401. every sueh action the jury may give such damages as they may think pro-[401]-portioned to the injury resulting from such death to the parties respectively for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought; and the amount so recovered, after deducting the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided amongst the before mentioned parties in such shares as the jury by their verdict shall find and direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzsimons v Telecom Éireann
...CO 4 CB (NS) 296 FRANKLIN V SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO 3 H & N 211 TAFF VALE RAILWAY V JENKINS 1913 AC 1 PYM V GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO 4 B & S 396 HULL V GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO OF IRELAND 26 LR (IR) 289 MURPHY V CRONIN 1966 IR 699 BYRNE V HOULIHAN 1966 IR 274 DAVIES V POWELL DUFFRYN A......
-
Hay v Hughes
... ... October 24th, 1973 & an action brought against him under the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1959 ... Railway (1858 3 H & N. 211) , has been held to be the ... 1857 4 B&S 403 , Pym -v- Great Northern Rail Co. 1863 4 B&3 396 and ... ...
-
De Sales v Ingrilli
...v Newport, Abergavenny and Hereford Railway Co (1857) 4 B & S 403n [ 122 ER 510]; Pym v Great Northern Railway Co (1863) 4 B & S 396 [ 122 ER 508]; Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1942] AC 601 at 606, 612–613, 618, 623; Public Trustee v Zoanetti (1945) 70 CLR 266; Carroll......
-
Murray v Shuter
... ... as it does on competing considerations of great public importance. They cannot be reconciled in a ... ...