Williams v Holland

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date12 June 1833
Date12 June 1833
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 848

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Williams
and
Holland

S. C. 3 Moo. & Sc. 540; 2 L. J. C. P. 190; at Nisi Prius, 6 Car. & P. 23.

williams v. holland. June 12, 1833. [S. C. 3 Moo. & Sc. 540; 2 L. J. C. P. 190: at Nisi Prius, 6 Car. & P. 23.] Where injury is occasioned by the carelessness and negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff is at liberty to bring an action on the case, notwithstanding the act be immediate, so long as it is not a wilful act. The declaration stated that Plaintiff, on, &c. at, &c., was lawfully possessed of a certain cart, and of a certain horse drawing the same; in which said cart certain persons, to wit, John Williams, being the son and servant, and Mary Ann Williams, being the infant daughter of the Plaintiff, were then riding in and along a certain public and common highway: and the Defendant was then and there possessed of a certain gig, and of a certain other horse drawing the same, which said gig and horse were then and there under the care, government, and direction of the Defendant, in and along [113] the said highway, to wit, at, &c. Nevertheless the Defendant so carelessly, unskilfully, and improperly drove, governed, and directed his said gig and horse, that, by and through the carelessness, negligence, unskilfulness, and improper conduct of the Defendant, the said gig and horse of the Defendant then and there ran and struck with great violence upon and against the cart and horse of the Plaintiff, and thereby then and there crushed, broke to pieces, and damaged the same; and the said cart of the Plaintiff thereby then and there became and was rendered of little or no value to the Plaintiff: and thereby the said John Williams and Mary Ann Williams were then and there cast and thrown with great force and violence from and out of the said cart to and upon the ground there, and by means of the several premises aforesaid, the Plaintiff was deprived of the service of his son, and put to expense for doctor's bills, &e. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Tindal C. J., it appeared that the Plaintiff's cart was standing at the side of a road twenty-four feet wide, with the near wheel on the footway, when the Plaintiff in a gig, and, in the act of racing with another gig, drove against the cart, upset and broke it to pieces, and severely injured the Plaintiff's children. The defence was, that the Defendant's horse had run away with him. And the Chief Justice left it to the jury to say whether the collision was the result of accident, or of negligence and carelessness in the Defendant. The jury found the latter, and gave a verdict with damages for the Plaintiff. It was also contended, on the part of the Defendant, that the action was misconceived, and ought to have been trespass instead of case. The Chief Justice having reserved that point for the consideration of the Court, [114] Bompas Serjt. obtained, thereupon, a rule nisi to set aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit. Jones Serjt., who shewed cause, contended, that the result of all the cases on this subject was, that where the act complained of is immediate and wilful, the remedy is only by action of trespass; where the act is immediate, but occasioned by negligence or carelessness, the remedy is either by trespass or ease; where the act is unimmediate, the remedy is by case only. Weaver v. Ward (Hob. 134), Underwood v. Hewson (1 Str. 10BING. 115. WILLIAMS V. HOLLAND 849 596), Reynolds v. Clarke (ibid. 634), Scott v...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Doreen Ann Letang (Respondent) Frank Anthony Cooper (Appellant)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 June 1964
    ...If the driver of a horse and gig negligently ran down a passer-by, the plaintiff could sue the driver either in trespass or case: (see Williams v. Holland in 1833 (10 Bingham, 112); but if the driver was a servant, the plaintiff could not sue the master in trespass, but only in case: see Sh......
  • Attorney-General (Nsw) v Perpetual Trustee Company (Ltd)
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Scott v Davis
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 5 October 2000
    ...wish to sue the driver as well as the master, and actions for trespass and case could not be joined in the one action. It was not until Williams v Holland178 in 1833 that a plaintiff became able to waive the application of force and sue in case. The last step in this saga was taken when it ......
  • Marriott v Stanley
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 21 November 1840
    ...Channell Serjt. now shewed cause. The conduct of the plaintiff contributed (a) Ace. Williams v. Holland, 10 Biagh. 112, 3 M. & So. 540, 6 C. & P. 23. 462 ROBERTS V. SNELL 1 MAN. & G. 577. materially to the accident. Though the practice of exposing goods for sale in the public street was not......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT