The Midland Railway Company v John Daykin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1855 |
| Date | 12 November 1855 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 1016
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 73.
the midland kailway company, Appellants; john daykin, Respondent. Nov. 12, 1855. [S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 73.] A colt strayed from a field on to a public road abutting upon which was a yard not fenced from a railway, the gate of which was through the neglect of the company's servants left open. Whilst the colt was being driven back to the field by the servants of the owner, it escaped into the yard, and thence on to the railway, where it was killed by a passing train :-Held, that the company were responsible. - A plaint in which the now respondent was the plaintiff, and the now appellants were the defendants, was duly entered in the county-court of Leicestershire, holden at Loughborough, and came on to be tried before J. D. B., Esq., judge of the said court, and a jury duly summoned and sworn, on the 9th of April, 1855. The plaint was as follows:- 17C.B.127. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY V. DAYKIN 1017 " In the County Court of Leicestershire, at Loughborough. " Between John Daykin, Plaintiff, and the Midland Railway Company, Defendants. " This action is brought to recover the sum of 251., being the damages sustained by the plaintiff by the loss of a colt, the property of the plaintiff, and which said colt was killed on the defendants' railway on the 12th day of February, 1855, by the negligence and carelessness of [127] the defendants or their servants. Dated, this 29th of March, 1855. "Jos. inglesant, " Attorney for the said plaintiff. " To the Midland Eailway Company, the above named defendants." At the hearing of the case, the following facts were proved on the part of the plaintiff. The colt in question was a nag colt rising two years old, and had never been handled or broken in, and was of the value of 251. The colt had in some way escaped from a field in which it had been confined, and was straying upon a -public road. Abutting upon the said road is a coal-yard, which is not fenced from the railway; and the only protection against accident which is afforded to any cattle being upon the said road consists in a gate opening from the road into the said coal-yard. It is the duty of the defendants to secure the said gate for the protection of any cattle lawfully being upon the said road. Notice having been given to the plaintiff's servants that the colt had strayed from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenhalgh v British Railways Board
...see The Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company v. Wallis, (1854, 14 Common Bench at page 213), 38 applied in Midland Railway v. Daykin, (1855 17 C.B. page 125). But those fencing cases seem to me to be entirely different. The very object of a fence is to keep cattle from str......
- British Oxygen Company Ltd v Board of Trade
-
Bilbee v The London, Brighton, and South Cost Railway Company
...45, and which is substantially re-enacted by theS& 9 Viet, ic. 20, s. 47. (1) And sve\The Midlatul Railway Company, App., Daykin, Eesp., 17 C. B. 126. 18 Ci & (N. S.) B92. LYNE V. WYATT 575 use greater caution in crossing the line. No notice could have given this plaintiff', who resided in ......