Woolf v Beard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1838 |
| Date | 25 May 1838 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 538
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
WOOLF V. BEAUD 8 CAB. & P. 374. First Sittings at Westminster, in Trinity Term, 1838, before Mr. Justice Coleridge. May 25th, 1838. woolf v. beard. (If, in an action for the negligent driving of the defendant's servant, it appear that the plaintiff, by his own negligence and want of care, contributed to the accident, he cannot recover in the action, even though the jury should think that the defendant's servant was guilty of negligence as well as the plaintiff.) Negligence.-The declaration stated, that the plaintiff was going along the highway, and that the defendant was possessed of a cabriolet, driven by his servant [374] along the aaid highway, and that by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant's servant in the management of the cabriolet, it struck against the plaintiff and injured her. Plea-Not guilty. It appeared that between seven and eight o'clock oil the evening of the 30th of November, the plaintiff, who was a female servant, was intending to cross High Street, Aldgate, and was stepping off the curb-stone for that purpose, when the cabriolet, which came up at a pace of nine or ten miles an hour, struck against her and knocked her down, by which she was injured Evidence was given to shew that the cabriolet belonged to the defendant Humfrey, for the defendant, proposed to shew that the defendant was not the owner of the cabriolet, at the time of the accident, as it was let on hire by the day. He cited the case of Laugher v. Pointer (8 D & R 556) Join Leigh, for the plaintiff, cited the case of Wheatley v. Patrick (2 M. & W. 650). Coleridge, J., thought that that question could not be gone into on these pleadings. Humfrey addressed the jury, and argued that the accident happened by the plaintiff's own want of caution in stepping off the curb-stone when a cabriolet was coming up, and that the man who drove it was not at all to blame Coleridge, J. (in summing up).-If the plaintiff has contributed to the accident by he! own neglect, she cannot recover in this action. I will put this case -If a peison in Oxford Street sees an omnibus coming, however furiously, and he will be headstrong enough to try to cross [375] the street, and is run over, he cannot recover in an action against the proprietors of the omnibus, as no one has a right of action, if he meets with an accident which by ordinary care he might have avoided The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Davis
...his servant at the time of the injury, the defendant cannot dispute these facts under the plea of not guilty.’ 287 (1838) 8 Car & P 373 [ 173 ER 538]. 288 (1837) 2 M & W 650 at 652 [ 150 ER 917 at 289 (1837) 6 LJ Ex 193 at 194. 290 (1837) 2 M & W 650 at 652 [ 150 ER 917 at 918]. 291 (1837......
-
Doyle v Kinahan
...W. 548. Scott v. Dublin and Wicklow Railway CompanyUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 393, 398. Luxford v. LargeENR 5 Car. & P. 421. Woolf v. BeardENR 8 Car. & P. 373. Morrison v. The General Steam Navigation CompanyENR 8 Exch. 733. Holden v. The Liverpool Navigation CompanyENR 3 C. B. 1. Smith v. Dodson ......
-
The Trustees of The Charities of Joseph Evans v The Governor and Company of The Bank of Ireland
...Cr. Cas. 284. Rex v. Hort 1 Mod, Cr. Cas. 486. Flower v. AdamENR 2 Taunt. 314. Hawkins v. CooperENR 8 Car. & P. 473. Woolf v. BeardENR 8 C. & P. 373. Luxfrd v. LargeENR 5 Car. & P. 421. Buttrfield v. ForresterENR 11 East, 60. Russel v. langstaffeENR 2 Doug. 514. Lickbarrow v. MasonUNK 2 Ter......
-
Richard Mitchell and Dorothy, his Wife, v Chrassweller and Another
...are not put in issue by not guilty,^ Taverner v. Little, 5 N. C. 67-8, 7 Scott, 796; .Dunford v. Tmttles, 12 M. & W. 529; Woolf v. Beard, 8 C. & P. 373; Hart v. Crowley, 12 Ad. & E. 378. [Williams, J. It is impossible to contend that the inducement here is traversable. If so, it need not be......