Sarah Thorogood, Administration of Charles Thorogood v Bryan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 1849 |
| Date | 20 June 1849 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 137 E.R. 452
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C 18 L. J. C. P. 336. Doubted, Wate v. North Estern Railway Company, 1849, El. BL. 7 EL. 728. Not followed, The Milon, 1861, Lush. 388. Referred to, Childv, Hearn, 1874, L. R. 9 Ex. 47. Not applied, Spaight v. tedcastle, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 222; Chartrred Mercantile Bank of India v. Nethland India steam Novigation Company, 1883, 10Q. B. D. 545. Overruled, The Bernia, 1887-88, 12 p. D. 58; 13 App. Cas 1. Referred to, The sara, 1887, 58 L. J. Q. B. 13. Discussed, The Drumlanring, 1910 P. 260; 1911 A. C. 21. Referred to, Coryv. France 1911 1 k. b. 134; The Decoshire, 1912 P. 43; 1912 A. C. 645.
sarah thoeogood, Administratrix of Charles Abraham Thorogood, v. bryan. cattlin v. hills and others. June 20, 1849. [S. C. 18 L. J. C. P. 336. Doubted, Waite v. North Eastern Railway Company, 1859, El. Bl. & El. 728. Not followed, The Milan, 1861, Lush. 388. Eeferred to, Child v. Hearn, 1874, L. E. 9 Ex. 182. Approved, Armstrong v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 1875, L. E. 10 Ex. 47. Not applied, Spaight v. Tedcastle, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 222; Chartered Mercantile Hank of India v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Company, 1883, 10 Q. B. D. 545. Overruled, The Bernina, 1887-88, 12 P. D. 58; 13 App. Cas. 1. Eeferred to, The Sara, 1887-89, 12 P. D. 164; 14 App. Cas. 209. See Mathews v. London Street Tramways Company, 1888, 58" L. J. Q. B. 13. Discussed, The Drumlanrig, [1910] P. 260; [1911] A. C. 21. Eeferred to, Cory v. France, [1911] 1 K. B. 134; The Devonshire, [1912] P. 43; [1912] A. C. 645.] One who sustains an injury from a collision with a carriage or a vessel, cannot maintain an action against the owners of such carriage or vessel, if negligence either on his own part, or on the part of those having the guidance of the carriage or vessel in which he is a passenger, conduced to the accident, and such injury might have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care on his part or their part. The first of these was an action upon the case brought by the plaintiff Sarah Thorogood, as administratrix of her late husband, Charles Abraham Thorogood, under the statute 10 Viet. c. 93, to recover [116] damages against the defendant for negligently causing the intestate's death. The declaration stated that Charles Abraham Thorogood, in his life-time, and before the committing of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, was lawfully passing along a certain public highway; that the defendant, at the time of the committing of the grievance, was possessed of a certain carriage, called an omnibus, and of two horses then drawing the same along the said highway, which said carriage and horses were under the care and direction of a certain servant of the defendant: yet that the defendant, after the passing of a certain act of parliament made and passed, &c., intituled " An act to compensate the families of persons killed by accident," to wit, on, &c., by her said servant, so carelessly drove and directed the said carriage and horses, that, by the negligence and improper conduct of the defendant, by her said servant, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wellwood v Alexander King Ltd
...D. 42. (2) 2 C. M. & R. 660. (1) [1907] 2 I. R. 134. (2) [1902] P. D. 42. (3) 13 App. C. 1. (4) 12 P. D. 91. (5) [1904] 2 I. R. 129. (6) 8 C. B. 115. (1) 12 P. D., at p. 89. (2) [1920] 2 I. R., at p. 282. (3) [1907] 2 I. R. 134. (4) 13 App. C. 1. (5) [1918] A. C., at p. 114. (6) [1918] A. C......
- Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Another
-
Smith and Others v Brown and Others
...although the sailor himself may have met his death while he was below, and have been himself free from blame: (Thoroughgood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 115.) That case is, however, much doubted. [Hannen, J. referred to Cattlin v. Bills (8 C. B. 123.] It Thoroughgood v. Bryan be good law it might be a......
-
Seward v Owners of The Vera Cruz
...express words it should be confined to the owners of the statutory wrong-doing ship, and not extended to the master: Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 115 ; Armstrong v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, L. Rep. 10 Ex. 47; 33 L. Rep. N. S. The Milan, Lush. 388 ; The Khedive, 4 Asp. Mar. L......