Seymour v Greenwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1861 |
| Date | 19 June 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 148
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 30 L J. Ex. 189; 9 W. R. 518: affirmed 1862, 7 H. & N 355.
seymour v. greenwood Jan. 20, 1861.-The plaintiff, a passenger by an omnibus, 27- '-\ f^ -Awhile being forcibly removed from it by the guaid in charge, was thrown on the ground and seriously injured. The proprietor of the omnibus, on being applied to for compensation, stated that the plaintiff' was drunk and had refused to pay his fare. On cross-examination the plaintiff did not deny that he had been drinking. Held, that if the guard intended to put the plaintiff' safely out of the omnibus, there was evidence that in so doing he was executing the commands of the proprietor his master, and that if the injury was caused by the guard acting without due care in executing such command the proprietor was responsible. [S. C. 30 L J. Ex. 189; 9 W. R. 518: affirmed 1862, 7 H. & N 355.] Declaration. That the plaintiff was a passenger for reward in and upon a certain carriage of the defendant, used for the conveyance of passengers in a certain public street 111 the city of Manchester, to wit Chester Roacl, and being and while he was such passenger, the defendant and his servants so negligently and improperly conducted themselves in and about the driving, managing and conducting of the said carriage^ that the plaintiff was thereby cast trom the said carriage to the giound with gieat violence, and his skull was fractured and his legs crubhed and bruised, and he suffered great personal injuries, &c. Pleas. First Not guilty. Secondly, that the plaintiff was not a passenger. At the trial, before Blackburn, J , at the last Liverpool Spring Ab&izes, it appeared 6 H & N 360 SEYMOUR V. GREENWOOD 149 that the action was brought against the defendant, the proprietor of an omnibus, by the plaintiff, who had been forcibly removed frem the omnibus by the guard in charge of it, whereby the plaintiff's skull was fractured. The plaintiff's witnesses [360] proved that the plaintiff pulled the wire and the bell rung The guard then went into the omnibus and seized the plaintiff by the collar The plaintiff offering no resistance, the guard backed himself out of the omnibus, drawing the plaintiff after him, and threw the plaintiff upon the road. The plaintiff fell to the ground, and a cab, coming up, went over him The guard did not fall. This was in August, 1859. In December the plaintiff's attorney wrote to the defendant as follows.- " Sir,-I have been requested by Mr. Seymour to write to you in reference to the serious injuries he sustained at the hands of your servants on the 22nd of August last. " I may state that he was a passenger on that day in your omnibus, &c. He signalled the guard to stop and let him alight. By the negligence and improper conduct of the guard, Mr. Seymour was cast with great violence upon the roadway. One of your Hansom cabs, which was following the omnibus, immediately came into contact with Mr. Seymour's head. I shall be glad to receive any communication from you upon the subject, &c-I am, Sir, "R W stead " Mr. John Greenwood." In consequence of that letter a person named Baxter called on the plaintiff's attorney. He said that Mr Seymour was mistaken in signalling the guard to stop; that he was drunk, and h.ul refused to pay his fare; that he had created a disturbance in the omnibus lower down the road; that he had first assaulted the guard, and that there had been a scuffle, and that in the scuffle they had both rolled out into the road. On cross-examination, the plaintiff said his memory was much affected by the accident, but he believed he was not drunk at the time, but he admitted that he had been drinking [361] At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the defendant's counsel submitted that there was no evidence to charge the defendant with the assault committed by his servant, which was not any negligence in the performance of his duty, but an unwarrantable assault; and a verdict was entered for the plaintiff with leave to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, if the Court should be of opinion that there was no evidence on which the jury might reasonably find that the act of the seivant was one for which the defendant was answerable T...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Davis
...of an Employer’, (1958) 32 Australian Law Journal 183. 178 (1833) 10 Bing 112 [ 131 ER 848]. 179Seymour v Greenwood (1861) 6 H & N 359 [ 158 ER 148]; (1861) 7 H & N 355 [ 158 ER 180 See eg Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 3rd ed (1990) at 80. 181 (1957) 97 CLR 36. 182 Gow, ......
-
Michael M'Narama, Plaintiff, v The Most Noble Ulick Brown, Marquess of Sligo
...J. P. 630. (1) [1912] A. C. 716. (1) L. R. 2 Q. B. 534. (1) 3 E. & E. 672. (2) L. R. 7 C. P. 415, at p. 420. (3) L. R. 8 C. P. 148. (1) 6 H. & N. 359. (2) 7 H. & N. (3) [1895] 1 Q. B. 742. (1) 26 L. R. Ir. 150. (1) 26 L. R. Ir. 671. (2) L. R. 2 Ex. 259. (1) L. R. 7 C.P. 420. (2) [1912] A. C......
-
Williams v Jones
...for his own gratification, and he is responsible in an action of trespass for the damage resulting from it. Again, in Seymour v Greenwood (7 H & N. 355) the act of the defendant's servant, though wanton arid violent, was within the course of his employment. All the authorities on this point......
- Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew