Sleath v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1839 |
| Date | 19 February 1839 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 976
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
S. C 2 Mood. & R. 181, sub nomine Haeth v Wilson. Disapproved, Storey v. Ashton, 1869, L. R. 4 Q B 476
[607] court of common pleas. Adjourned Sittings in London, after Hilary Term, 1839, before Mr. Justice Erskine (who sat for the Lord Chief Justice). Feb. 19th, 1839. sleath v. wilson. (If a atrvant without his master's knowledge take his master's carriagp out of the coach-house, and with it commit an injury, the master is not liable , because he has not in such case intrusted the servant with the carriage But whenever the master has intrusted the servant with the control of the carriage, it ih no answer that the servant acted improperly in the management of it ; but the master in such case will be liable, because he has put it in the servant's power to mismanage the carriage, by intrusting him with it Therefore, where a servant, usage or custom could make it lawful -See further, as to this case, in the note at the end of Rmsin v. Mitchell and Others, po*l, p 613 * See the case of Raisin v. M-ttchell and Others, post, and the cases there referred to in the note at the end of it. 9AE.ftP. 808. SLEATH V. WILSON 977 having set his master down in Stamford Street, was directed by him to put up in Castle Street, Leicester Square ; but instead of so doing went to deliver a parcel of his own in the Old Street Road, and in returning along it drove against an old woman and injured her ; it was Held, that the master was responsible for his servant's act.) [S. C 2 Mood. & E. 181, sub nomine Heath v Wilson. Disapproved, Storey v. Ashton, 1869, L. K. 4 Q B 476 ] Caset recover damages for an injury occasioned to the plaintiff by the negligent driving of a servant of the defendant. Pleas-1st, that the horse and carriage were not the defendant's ; 2nd, that, the person driving was not the defendant's servant , 3rd, that, at-the time when the injury was sustained, the horse and carnage were not ib the employ of the defendant, but were improperly used by the person driving them for purposes of his own. WMde, Serjeant, in stating the plaintiff's case, referred to the case of Joel v Morison (a)1. [608] The witnesses on the part of the plaintiff stated, that the defendant's servant was driving a four-wheeled phaeton, drawn by one horse, along the Old Street Road, at a quick pace ; some described it as very fast, others as not so fast; but they all agreed in the fact, that the plaintiff, who was an old woman nearly seventy years of age, and was crossing the road, was knocked down by one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feldman (Pty) Ltd v Mall
...are in point: Joel v Morrison (172 E.R. 1338); Venables v Smith (2 Q.B.D. 279); Storey v Ashton (L.R. 4, Q.B. 476); Sleath v Wilson (173 E.R. 976); Patten v Rea. (supra); Aitchison v Page Motors Ltd. (154 L.T. 128). Further on the Brink, K.C., replied. Cur adv vult. Postea (August 7th). Jud......
-
Estate Van der Byl v Swanepoel
...employment.: The question is whether the driver was on a frolic of his own. See Joel v Morrison (6, C. & P. at p. 503); Sleath v Wilson (9, C. & P. 607); Whatman v Pearson (L.R. 3 C.P. 422) and Victor v Logie (1923, E.D.L. 233); Rayner v Mitchell (supra) is distinguishable. See MacDonell's ......
-
Feldman (Pty) Ltd v Mall
...of which, with one exception, are concerned with the driving of vehicles: - 1834, Joel v Morrison (6 C. & p. 502); 1839 Sleath v Wilson (9 C. & P. 607); 1853, Mitchell v Crasweller (13, C.B. 237); 1868, Whatman v Pearson (3 C.P. 422); 1869, Storey v Ashton (4 Q.B. 476), 1891, Coupe Co. v Ma......
-
Richard Mitchell and Dorothy, his Wife, v Chrassweller and Another
...of his own, without being-at all on .his master's business, the master will not be liable." .That ruling was adopted in Sleath v. Wilson, 9 C. & P. 607, where, a servant, having set his master down Jn Stamford Street, was directed by him to put up in Castle Street, Leicester Square, but, in......