Rigby v Hewitt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1850 |
| Date | 08 May 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 103
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C 19 L J Ex 291 Referred to, The Bermna (2), 1887, 12 P D 71 Discussed, Cory and Son, Limited v France, Fenwick and Company, Limited, (1911) 1 K B 122
RIUBY V HEWITT 103 [240] KlOBY v hewitt May 8, IH50-In an action foi negligence, it appeared that the plaintiff was a passenger on an omnibus which was lacing with the defendant's omnibus, and, in hying to avoid a cait, a wheel of the defendant's omnibus came in contact with the step of the omnibus on which the plaintiff was tiding, which caused the lattei to swing towaids the keibstone, and the speed tendering it impossible to pull up, the seat on which the plaintiff sat struck against a lamp-post, and he was thiown off -Held, that the juiy weie piopeily duected, that the plaintiff was not disentitled to lecovei meiely because the omnibus on which he sat was dtiving at a fuiious tate , and that, if the juiy thought that the collision took place fiom the negligence of the defendant's omnibus, so that the othei omnibus was not in fault in not endeavoui ing to avoid the accident, the defendant was liable [S. C 19 L ,\ Ex: 2'H Refetied to, The Ueirnna (2), 1887, UP [) 71 Discussed, Gary and Xon, Liuultd v Fiance, FenwtcL and L'unifany, Linutul, [1911] 1 K B 12J | Case for negligence in diiving the defendant's omnibus, vvheieby it came in contact with another omnibu.s on which the plaintiff \vasthiown off and injuied Plea, not guilty At the trial, before Bolfe, B, at the last Liveipool Assizes, it appealed that the plaintiff was a passenger outside an ammhus which, just befoie the accident, had staited from Matket stieet, Manchestei, at the same time as the defendant's omnibus The driveis weie competing foi passengers, each endeavouiing to get fiist, and, while the omnibuses wete going at great speed, in tiying to avoid a cart which was in the way, the wheel of the defendant's omnibus come in contact with a piojecting step of the omnibus on which the plaintiff was tiding, which caused the latter to swing towaids the kerbstone The speed with which it was going leiideted it impossible foi the driver to pull up, and the seat on which the plaintiff sat sti uck against a lamp-post, and he was thrown oft The leained Judge told the juty, that the plaintiff was not disentitled to tecovei meiely because the omnibus on which he sat wa- dm en at a furious rate, and that, if the juiy thought that the collusion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Company Ltd (The Wagon Mound)
... ... ( 1870 ) L.R. 6 C.P. 14 ; H.M.S. London [ 1914 ] P. 72 ; 30 T.L.R. 196 ; Weld-Blundell v. Stephens (supra); Rigby v. Hewitt ( 1854 ) 5 Exch. 240 ; Greenland v. Chaplin ( 1850 ) 5 Exch. 243 ; Hadley v. Baxendale ( 1854 ) 9 Exch. 341 ; Cory ... ...
-
Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Company
...of Appeal Bankes, Warrington and Scrutton, L.JJ. Polemis v. Furness, Withy, and Co. Limited Rigby v. HewittENRENR 5 Ex. 243 5 Ex. 240 Greenland v. ChaplinENR 5 Ex. 248 Smith v. London and South-Western, Railway Company 23 L. T. Rep. 680 L. Rep. 6 C. P. 21 Cory v. France, Fenwick, and Co.DID......
-
Mills v Armstrong. The "Bernina"
...Company 3 Mee. & W. 244 Butterfield v. ForresterENR 11 East, 60 Ashby v. White Smith's L. C. vol. 1, 3rd edit. P. 132, a Rigby v. HewittENR 5 Ex. 240 Greenland v. ChaplinENR 5 Ex. 243, 248 Tuff v. WarmanENRENR 2 C. B. N. S. 740 5 C. B. N. S. 573 Waite v. The North-Eastern Railway CompanyENR......
-
The "Milan."
... ... of the decision in Thorogood v Bryan, but it may be questioned whether the reasoning of the Court in that case is consistent with those in Rigby v. Hewitt (5 Exch, 240), and Gieenland v. Chapkn (5 Exch. 243), or with the series of dcisions from Quarman v. Burnett (6 M. & W. 499) to Reedie v ... ...