Vennall v Garner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 298
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 3 Tyr. 85.
vennall n. garner. Exch. of Pleas. 1832.-In case for running down a ship, : neither party can recover when both are in the wrong ; but the plaintiff may : recover, although he might have prevented the collision, provided that ho was in | no degreelin fault in not endeavouring to prevent it. ' [S. C. 3 Tyr. 85.] Case for running down a ship. At the trial, before Bollanrl, B., at the last Durham Assizes, it appeared that [22] the defendant's ship had the wind free, and was a light ship, and that the plaintiffs ship was hard up in the wind, and laden. The defendant's ship ought to have given way, and it was clear that she was wrong in not doing so; but it was contended for the defendant, that though the defendant was wrong in not giving way, yet, that the plaintiff might have avoided the accident by altering his helm at the right moment. The plaintiff recovered a verdict, and Alexander now moved for a new trial, citing Fcmderplank v. Miller (I M. & M. 169) ; and he urged, that it should have been left distinctly to the jury, whether there were any means of preventing the accident by care on the part of the plaintiff; and that, if such means existed, the plaintiff's neglect to use them deprived him of the right to sue. bayley, B. The rule is, that the plaintiff could not recover, if his ship were in any degree in fault, in not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tuff v Warman
...the absence of the light does not in any way contribute to the accident. That, it is submitted, is the correct view. Vennall v. Garner, 1 C. & M. 21, seems very applicable here : it was there held, that, in case for running down a ship, neither party can recover when both are in the wrong; ......
-
Doyle v Kinahan
...v. Dodson 3 M. & Gr. 59. Thorogood v. BryanENR 8 C. B. 115, see pp. 117, 130. Hawkins v. CooperENR 8 Car. & P. 473. Vennall v. GarnerENR 1 C. & M. 21. Tuff v. WarmanENRENR 2 C. B. N. S. 760; 5 C. B. N. S. 573. Flower v. AdamENR 2 Taunt. 316, per Lawrence, J. Dowell v. General Steam Navigati......
-
Burgess v Gray
...when his orders had been to go through street B. The rule is more cautiously laid down by Bayley, B., in Fen/nail v. Garner, 3 Tyrwh. 35, 1 Cr. & M. 21, that the plaintiff could not recover, if his ship were in any degree in fault, in not endeavouring to prevent the collision. And see Aston......
-
The "James"-(Stonehouse, Master)
...In cases of collision, where both were to blame, the rule is that the (a)1 Vaux v. Shepherd, 8 Moore, P. C 75. (6) Vennall v. Garner, 1 Cr. & M. 21 ; Morrison v. Steam Nairigatton Company, 8 Exch. 733. (a)2 The " Telegraph," 8 Moore, P. C. 167. 1020 tbe"ja.mes" swab, u damages are equally d......