Sharp v Grey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 1833 |
| Date | 11 January 1833 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 684
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 Moo. & Sc. 620; 2 L. J. C. P. 45 Distinguished, Readhead v. Midland Railway, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 387. Applied, Francis v. Cockrell, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B. 512. Referred to, Hyman v. Nye, 1881, 6 Q. B, D. 687.
sharp v. grey. Jan. 11, 1833. [S. C. 2 Moo. & Sc. 620; 2 L. J. C. P. 45. Distinguished, Seadhead v. Midland Eailway, 1869, L. E. 4 Q. B. 387. Applied, Francis v. Oockrell, 1870, L. E. 5 Q. B. 512. Eeferred to, Hyman v. Nye, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 687,] A coach proprietor is bound to convey his passengers in road-worthy vehicles, and if . an accident happen from a defect in construction, the proprietor is liable, although the defect be out of sight and not discoverable upon ordinary examination. Assumpsit against a coach proprietor and common carrier, for failing in his undertaking to convey the Plaintiff safely from Chertsey to London. The axletree of the Defendant's coach/broke on the journey, whereby the Plaintiff was thrown off, his limbs fractured, and considerable loss and expence incurred in his cure. It appeared that the axletree was an iron bar, which, excepting the arms projecting into the wheels, was en-[458]-elosed in a frame of wood consisting of four pieces bound together by clamps of iron. The clamps were fastened with screws. Before the journey the Defendant's servants had examined this part of the vehicle in the usual way, when no defect was obvious to the sight; but upon investigation after the accident, a defect was discovered in that portion of the iron bar which, being embedded in the wood work, could only be examined by unscrewing the iron clamps, and taking off the wooden frame. ; A mail contractor proved that it is not usual, previous to journies, to examine the iron of the axletree by opening its wooden frame, and that such a practice would be productive rather of insecurity than of safety: the maker of the Defendant's coach swore that the whole vehicle had been made of the best materials; that the coach was not new; but that the iron of axletrees was rendered more tough by use, and was less liable to accident after wear than at first starting. Whereupon it was contended that there had been no want of due care on the Defendant's part, and that the Plaintiff's calamity was the result of inevitable accident, for which the Defendant was not responsible. Tindal C. J. directed the the jury to consider whether there had been, on the part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McManus v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
...; and if by water, to employ a vessel reasonably stout, strong, and well equipped for the voyage." [Martin, B , refeired to Sharp v. Qiey (9 Bing 457) ] The providing an insufficient vehicle is not a risk of conveyance, but a bieach of contract preliminary to the conveyance The Company, ind......
-
Burns v The Cork and Bandon Railway Company
...Law T., N. S., 682. Christie v. GriggsENR 2 Camp. 79. Israel v. ClarkENR 4 Esp. 259. Crofts v. WaterhouseENR 3 Bing. 319. Sharp v. GreyENR 9 Bing. 457. Grote v. The Chester and Holyhead Railway CompanyENR 2 Exch. 251. Aston v. HeavenENR 2 Esp. 533. Harris v. CostarENR 1 Car. & P. 630. Ross ......
-
Ryan v Clarkin [Supreme Court.]
...50. (16) L. R. 2 Q. B. 412, at p. 424; L. R. 4 Q. B. 379, at p. 392. (17) 57 S. J. 59. (1) 13 Ir. C. L. R. 543. (1) L. R. 4 Q. B. 379. (1) 9 Bing. 457. (2) 13 Ir. C. L. R. (3) L. R. 5 Q. B. 501. (1) L. R. 4 Q. B. 379. (2) 6 Q. B. D. 685. (3) [1917] 2 K. B. 325, p. 331. (1) 6 Q. B. D. 685. (......