Williams v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1865 |
| Date | 07 February 1865 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 528
Exchequer Division
S. C. 33 L. J. Ex. 297: affirmed p. 602, post.
lead to a judgment for the defendant, kW, as A. na-ajority of the Court is of a different opinion, the judgment must be for the Crown. Judgment for the Crown. [256] WILLIAMS v. JONES. June 11, 1864.The gratuitous loan of a shed for a particular purpose bears no analogy to a bailment of personal chattels, but is a mere licence to use the shed, revocable at any time. The platittiff Lela (u shed to the defendant to make therein a sign-board, and 1) , a carpenter employed by the defendant, lighted his pipe from a match with a shaving which he dropped, and thereby set fire to the shavings on the ground, by which the shed was burned : Held, that the defendant was not tiiah5e either as bailee or by relation of master and servant [s. C. 33 L. J. Ex. 297: affirmed p. 602, past.] The declaration stated that the plaintiff was possessed of a certain shed in which were divers wood shavings and other inflammable materials ; and in consideration that the plaintiff would suffer and permit the defendant and his servants, being carpenters, to use the said shed for the purpose of cutting and working divers deals, the defendant promised the plaintiff that he and his servants would use the said shed in a proper and careful manner, and would take reasonable care that no damage or injury should happen or be caused to the plaintiff' by their use thereof. Averrnents: Out the plaintiff suffered and permitted the defendant and his said servants to use the said shed for the purpose and on the terms aforesaid, and the defendant and his servants had used the said shed for the purpose and on the terms aforesaid. breach that the defendant and bid servants dal not nor would use the said shed in a proper and careful manner, or take such reasonable care as aforesaid, but so carelessly and incautiously and negligently conducted themselves in the said use of the said shed, that the are was, by their negligence in using the same, set on tire, and the same, together with two other sheds and divers sa.wpits and fences of the plaintiff next adjoining thereto, and divers goods of the plaintiff therein, were burnt and destroyed, and the plaintiff last the use and enjoyment of the same. Pleas. First- non assumpsit. Seeondly : that the plaintiff dirt not sutler and permit the defendant and his servants to use the said shed, nor did the defendant and his servants use the said shed, for the purpose and on the terms in the declaration alleged. Thirdly - that the defendant and his (2571 servants used the said shed in a proper and careful manner, and took such reasonable care as in the declaration, and did not so carelessly, incautiously or negligently conduct themselves or himself in the use of the said shed as in the declaration alleged. Issues thereon At the trial, before Williams, 3 , at the Brecon Spring Assizes, 1664, the following facts were proved on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant, who was a publican, had bought of the plaintiff, a timber merchant, some deals for the purpose of making a sign-board for a public-house The deals were removed from the plaintiff's shed to a brick-yard to be dried. The plaintiff afterwards met the defendant, when he asked the plaintiff to lend him the shed to make the sign-board in, to which the plaintiff assented. The deals were brought to the plaintiff's shed, in which there was a carpenter's bench, and the defendant erep)oyed a carpenter, named Davies, to make the sign-board, and agreed to pay him 41. 4s. for making it. While Davies was at work in the shed, making the sign-board, a carpenter, named Thomas, came there and loaded his pipe with tobacco. Davies asked him if he had a pipe full of tobacco to spare. Thomas gave it to him and be loaded his pipe with it. Thomas then struck a match, and Davies handed a shaving and lighted it from the match. He then dropped the shaving, and set fire to the shavings on the ground, and three sheds of the pl4ntilf were burned down. Me defendant adduced evidence to prove that he never asked the plaintiff to lend him the shed. The defendant's counsel objected that the declaration was not proved, since the negligence of Davies was not negligence by defendant's servant in the course of using the shed, but an act wholly foreign and collateral to his employment by the defendant [258] The lw,rned Judge left it to the jury to say, first, whether the plaintiff lent the defendant the shed as alleged: secondly, whether the fire was caused hy the negligence of the defendant's servant in the shelf. The jury both kluestiusi$ the affirmative , and a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, with 451 damages, leave being reserved to the defendant to enter a nonsuit or a verdict for him, if the Court should be of opinion that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's case, the defendant consenting that the Court might consider the declaration amended if an amendment ought to have been made. Gray, in last Easter Term, obtained a rule nisi accordingly, on the ground that the facts proved at the trial did not shew any liability in the defendant for the damage, the negligence not being the defendant's negligence, and not being an act of Davies within the scope of his employment , against which Grove and Giffard shewed cause (a) First, upon the facts proved the defendant is responsible for the damage The question of a master's liability for the negligence of his servant does not arise here this is a question as to the liability of a gratuitous bailee for damage done to the thing lent Where a loan is gratuitous, and therefore exclusively for the advantage of the borrower, he is bound to use great diligence in the protection of the thing lent, and is responsible even for slight negligence Coggs v. Berna?d (2 Ld. Raym. 909), 1 Smith, Lead. Cas., p. 193, 5th ed., Wilson v. Brett (11 M. & W. 113), Story on Bailments, 237, p. 247, 5th ed. [Martin, B. This is not the case of a bailment of personal property.] [259] The same principle applies. Here there was the loan of a shed and a carpenter's bench within it, and a licence to go upon the land and use them. Blalcentore v. The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company (8 E & B. 1035, 1051) was the case of a gratuitous loan of a crane fixed at a railway station, which was as much a part of the realty as the shed in this case There the Court, in considering the correlative duties of a borrower and lender, adopted the principles of the civil law, but the distinction now suggested between personalty and realty was never adverted to [Martin, B. In that case the crane was a mere chattel fixed in the ground for its more convenient use. In Hellawell v. Eastwood (6 Exch. 295) it was held that chattels of that description were distrainable for rent.] The law will imply a contract on the part of the defendant to take due and proper care in the use of the shed, and to use it only for the purpose for which it was lent, [Martin, B. There was no contract arising from borrowing and lending There was rio transfer of the shed, but a mere licence to use it, which might have been revoked at any moment The same observation would apply to the loan of a personal chattel, and yet the borrower is responsible for negligence, for misuse, and gross want of skill in the use of it : Blakernore v. The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company (8 E & B 1035, 1051) The distinction contended for would lead to this singular consequence, that if a person lent his house and furniture to another, who, by his negligence, caused them to be burnt, he would be liable for the destruction of the furniture, but not of the house. Secondly, assuming that there was a contract on the part of the defendant, the fact of his having transferred to another person dominion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Century Insurance Company Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board
...2 K.B. 281, provides a very close parallel. As for the majority decision, nearly 60 years before that, of the Exchequer Chamber in Williams v. Jones, 3 H. & C. 602, it may be possible to draw distinctions, as the court in Jefferson's case sought to do. But this House is free to review the ......
-
Bryan v Lindo
...basis. There are the “smoking on the job” cases where the changes can be seen clearly by contrasting Williams v Jones (1865) 3 H & C 602; 159 E.R. 668; (master held not liable), with Jefferson v Derbyshire Farmers Ltd. [1921] 2 K.B. 281 and Century Insurance Co. Ltd v Northern Ireland Road ......
-
Creagh v Gamble
...Dougl. 359. Davis v. RussellENR 5 Bing. 354. Hogg v. WardENR 3 H. & N. 417. Hobbs v. BranscombeENR 3 Camp. 420. Williams v. JonesENR 3 H. & C. 602. Welfare v. L. B. Railway Co.ELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 693. Mersey Docks Trustees v. GibbsELR L. R. 1 H. L. 93, 111. Parton v. WilliamsENR 3 B. & Ald. 3......
-
Barker v Venter
...1906 T.S. 824 and Mbara v Landrey, 1917 CPD 599 are distinguishable and would not now be followed. The minority view in Williams v Jones, 3 H. & C. 602 has now been approved: see Century Insurance Co v N. Ireland Road Transport Board, 1942 A.C. at pp. 514, 519, 1953 (3) SA p772 VAN DER RIET......