Turberville v Stampe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 1072
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 1878, 4 Ex. D. 11.
TuRBERViLLE ?ò*. stampe. [Referred to, Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 1878, 4 Ex. D. 11.] S. C. Carth. 425 Com. 32. Salk. 13. Skinn. 681. 12 Mod. 151. Holt 9. Comb. 459. 1 Vin. 216, pi. 9. 2 Vin. 400, pi. 15. 5 Viu. 404, pi. 11. Pleadings vol. 3, 250. Case on the custom of the realm lies against a man for damage done by a fire he has lighted in his field. D. ace. 1 Bl. Com. 431. Unless such damage was occasioned by the act of God. A master is responsible for all acts done by his servant in the course of his employment, though without particular directions. S. C. 15 Vin. 311, pi. 9. D. ace. 1 Bl. Com. 431. 2 Term Rep. 154. Case grounded upon the common custom of the realm for negligently keeping his fire. The plaintiff declares that he was possessed of a close of heath, and that the defendant had another close of heath adjoining; that the defendant tarn improvide et negligenter custodivit ignem suum, that it consumed the heath of the plaintiff. Not guilty pleaded. Verdict for the plaintiff. And Gould King's Serjeant moved in arrest of judgment that this action ought not to be grounded upon the common customs of the realm ; for this fire in the field cannot be called ignis suus, for a man hag no power over a fire in the field, as he has over a fire in his house. And therefore 1LD.RATM.2M. MICH. TERM, 9 WILL. 3 1073 this resembles the case of an inn-keeper, who must answer for any ill that happens to the goods of his guest, so long as they are in his house; but he is not answerable, if a horse be stolen out of his close. And in fact in this case the defendant's servant kindled this fire by way of husbandry, and a wind and tempest arose, and drove it into hia neighbour's field ; so that it was not any neglect in the defendant, but the act of God. Sed non allocatur. For per Curiam as to the matter of the tempest that appeared only upon the evidence, and (a) not upon the record, and therefore the King's Bench cannot take notice of it, but it was good evidence to excuse the defendant at the trial. Then as to the other matter, per Holt Chief Justice, Rokeby and Eyre Justices, a man ought to keep the fire in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cia Maritima San Basilio SA v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd
...the authority of the master "although no express command or privity of his master was proved", see ( Turberville v. Stamp 1697) 1 Lord Raymond 264, Com. Contract 259: ( Huzzey v. Field 1835) 2 C, M. & R. at page 440, in which the judgment was written by Baron Parke. On the other hand, the......
-
Cox v Ministry of Justice
...of the vicarious liability of employers based on deemed authorisation or delegation, as for example in Turberville v Stampe (1698) 1 Ld Raym 264, 265 per Holt CJ and Bartonshill Coal Co v McGuire (1858) 3 Macq 300, 306 per Lord Chelmsford LC. The second, that the tortfeasor's activity is li......
-
Group Seven Ltd (a company incorporated under the laws of Malta) v Notable Services LLP
...of the vicarious liability of employers based on deemed authorisation or delegation, as for example in Turberville v Stampe (1698) 1 Ld Raym 264, 265 per Holt CJ and Bartonshill Coal Co v McGuire (1858) 3 Macq 300, [1858] UKHL 3_Macqueen_300, 306 per Lord Chelmsford LC. The second, that the......
-
Emanuel (H. & N.) Ltd v Greater London Council
...14 But the occupier is not liable for the escape of fire which is not due to the negligence of anyone. Sir John Holt himself said in Turberville v. Stampe (1697) 1 Salk. 13, that if a man is properly burning up weeds or stubble, and, owing to an unforeseen wind-storm, without negligence, th......