Sharrod v The London and North Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1849 |
| Date | 10 December 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 1345
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 6 Railw Cas 239, 7 D & L 213, 20 L J Ex 185, 14 Jur 23 Principle applied, Holmes v Mather, 1875, L R 10 Ex 269
sharrod v the london and north western railway company Dec 10, 1849 -The plaintiff's sheep got upon the defendants' uulway, through defect of fences, and were run over by a locomotrve engine driven by a servant who had directions from the Railway Company to drive at a certain rate per hour - Held, that trespass would not be against the Company, and that, it the cattle had a right to be on the railway, the plamtilf's remedy was by action on the case for causing the engrne to be rhiven in such a way as, to injure that rrght If the cattle were altogether wrong-doers, there was no neglect or misconduct for which the Company were responsrble If the cattle escaped through defect of fences which the Company should have kept up, then damage was consequent on thafc Ex Div x-43 1346 SHARROD V. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RLY. CO. 4 EX 981. wrong, and recoverable in an action on the case against the Company, far letting their fences be incomplete 01 out of lepait. [S C 6Eailw cas 239, 7 D &L 213, 20 L J Ex 185, 14 Jur 23 Principle applied, Holme', v Mather, 1875, L K 10 Ex 269] Trespass for driving a railway engine with great force and violence against and over the plaintiffs sheep, by means whereof they were killed Plea not guilty At the trial, before fiolfe, B, at the Stafford Summer Assizes, 1848, it appeared that the sheep in question had [581] got upon the defendants' line of railway, in consequence of the defect of fences, .uid weie run ovei by an express train diawn by .1 locomotive engine driven by a servant of the Company, who had directions to drive at a certain rate per houi , and it was suggested, that while going at that rate in the dusk of the evening, when the accident happened, the dnvet could not have seen the sheep in sufficient time to avoid the collision On this state of facts it was objected, op the part of the defendants, that the propei foim of action was case, not tiespass, and a verdict was entered by consent for the plaintiff, leave being resei ved to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit Godson, having obtained a rule nisi accoidingly Talfourd, Seijt, and Wlntmore shewed cause in last Hilaiy Vacation (Feb 8) The difficulty is in applying well-established punciples to anew state of things This injury was no doubt immediate, theiefoie, so far as regards the nature of the injury, trespass is the proper lemedy But then it is said, that thcie is a class of cases which shew that where the mastei is not personally piesent, but the vehicle is piopelled by his servant, who by a dereliction of duty causes the injuty, the mastei is only liable 111 case [Alderson, B Suppose, instead of sheep, the tiain had run over a man, could the Company have been indicted foi nidnslaughtei ' ] If they directed their servant to drive on and stop for nothing, and in consequence death ensued, they would ba guilty of manslaughter, or if the act was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doreen Ann Letang (Respondent) Frank Anthony Cooper (Appellant)
...Bingham, 112); but if the driver was a servant, the plaintiff could not sue the master in trespass, but only in case: see Sharrod v. London and North Western Railway in 1849 (4 Exchequer, 580). In either case to-day, the actionwould not be trespass or case, but only 7If we ware to bring bac......
-
Scott v Davis
...in concert in committing the tort.’ 170 In 1849, Parke B, when delivering the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in Sharrod v The London and North Western Railway Company255, neatly encapsulated the relevant law respecting trespass, and master and servant as then understood. His Lordship sa......
- Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Company Ltd v Long
-
Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Company Ltd (Inverpool.)
...oil was not done directly on to the foreshore but outside in the estuary. Furthermore it would seem from the decision in Sharrod v. London & North Western Railway (1849) 4. Exch. 580. that even if trespass would lie against the Master, it would not have been available against the Defendant ......