Williams v Clough
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1858 |
| Date | 21 April 1858 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 468
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C 27 L. J. Ex. 325. Referred to, Fouler v. Lock, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P 286 Considered, Griffiths v. London and St. Katherine's Dock Company, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 260.
williams v. clough. April 21, 1858.-Declaration that defendant was possessed of a granary and ladder leading up to it, that the ladder was wholly unfit and unsafe for use, that the plaintiff was a servant for hue of the defendant, that the defendant knowing the premises wrongfully and deceitfully ordered the plaintiff to carry corn up the ladder into the granary that the defendant believing the ladder to be fit for use, and not knowing the contrary, did carry corn up the ladder to the granary, and by reason of the ladder being unsafe the plaintiff fell from it. Held, on demurrer, that the declaration was sufficient - Semble, that if the plaintiff had the means of knowing that the ladder was unsafe it would have been a defence, but the defendant should have pleaded it. [vS. C 27 L J. Ex. 325. Refened to, Fouler v. Lock, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P 286 Considered, Griffiths v. London and St. Kathenne's Dock Company, 1884, 13 Q. B D. 260 ] Declaration. That at the time of the grievances, &c , the defendant was possessed of a granary and ladder leading from the ground up to the said granary, which ladder was at the time aforesaid wholly unfit and unsafe for use by any person carrying corn up the sdiae; and the plaintiff, at the time aforesaid, was a labourer and servant for hire of the defendant: yet the defendant, well knowing the premises, wrongfully and 3 H ft N. 259 JOHNSTON I'. SUMNER 469 deceitfully oideied and directed the plaintiff, as such ber\aut as aforesaid, to cany corn for tbe defendant up the said laddei into the said [259] gianary, and the defendant therefore, in obedience to the said oidei of the defendant, and believing the said ladder to be ht and proper foi use for the purpose aforesaid, and not knowing the contrary, did carry corn as aforesaid for the defendant up the t aid laddei in order to carry the same into the said gianary, but by teason of such ladder being unsafe and unfit for the purpose afoiesaid, the plaintiff, whilst so in the employ of the defendant, and whilst so fulfilling his said duty, &c, fell fiom the ladder, itec. Demurrer and joinder. GcUth, in support of the demuner It is the duty of a servant to take all proper precautions for his own piotection If he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smily v The Glasgow and Londonderry Steampacket Company
...& N. 349; 7 H. & N. 937. Vose v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & N. 728; 27 L. J. Exch. 249. Williams v. CloughENR 3 H. & N. 258, 325. Roberts v. SmythENRENR 2 H. & N. 213; 11 C. B. N. S. 429. Senior v. WardENR 1 E. & E. 385. Searle v. LindsayUNKENR 31 L. J. C. P. 106......
-
Hoey v Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway Company
...L. R. 1 C. P. 291. Holmes v. ClarkeENRENR 6 H. & N. 349; 7 H. & N. 936. Davis v. EnglandUNK 33 L. J. Q. B. 321. Williams v. CloughENR 3 H. & N. 258. Vose v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & N. 728. Indermaur v. DamesELR L. R. 1 C. P. 286. Dynen v. LeachUNK 26 L. J. Ex. 221......
-
M'Kinney v The Irish North-Western Railway Company
...Ir. C. L. R. 290. Waller v. South-Eastern RailwayENR2 H. & C. 102. Sullivan v. WatersUNK14 Ir. C. L. R. 460. Williams v. CloughENRUNK3 H. & N. 258; 27 L. J. Ex. 325. Griffiths v. GidlowENRUNK3 H. & N. 648; 27 L. J. Ex. 404. Hutchinson v. York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway CompanyENRUNK5 E......
-
Clarke, Appellant v Holmes, Respondent
...dangerous machinery, simply because the master knew it was unsafe, if the servant had the same means of knowledge William* v. Clouyh (3 H. & N. 258). In Roberts v Smith (2 H & N. 213) it'was assumed that mere knowledge on the part of the master that the scaffold was unsafe, would not render......