« 上一頁繼續 »
A. B. from London to Richmond, but so negligently and un- Claim by skilfully conducted themselves in that behalf on the said journey under Lord as to cause the train in which the said A. B. was being conveyed Campbell's
Act. to run on to a wrong line of rails and come into collision with another train which was running on the said lines.
4. By reason of the said collision the carriage in which the said A. B. was travelling was broken, and he received such injuries that he died therefrom shortly afterwards, viz., on 14th of April, 1877, and within twelve calendar months before the commencement of this action.
5. At the time of the death of the said A. B. there were surviving him C. B., his wife, and E. B. and G. B., his children, and the said C. B., E. B., and G. B. still survive.
6. The plaintiff, as the executor of the said A. B., and for the benefit of the aforesaid C. B., E. B., and G. B., according to the statute in such case made and provided, claims £500 damages.
Action against Pilot for Negligence causing Collision and Damage
to Plaintiff's Barge. 1. The plaintiff is a lighterman and owner of the sailing Claim barge“ R.," and the defendant is a licensed pilot, and was at the against
pilot for time of the collision hereinafter mentioned in charge of the negligence steam-ship “H.”
collision 2. At or about 5.30 p.m. on the 21st day of December last with and the said barge“R.” was lying at anchor in Upper Erith, on the damage to river Thames. There was no wind. The night was dark, the barge. tide was the last quarter ebb, and the riding light of the said barge was duly exhibited and burning brightly.
3. Under these circumstances the defendant so improperly and negligently navigated the “H." that she came into violent collision with the said barge, the stem of the said steamer striking the head of the said barge with such force that the said barge filled and sank shortly after the said collision.
4. In consequence of the said negligence and want of skill on the part of the defendant in navigating the said steam-ship, the plaintiff has been put to considerable expense in raising and repairing the said barge, and has lost the use of the said barge for a considerable time. The plaintiff claims £300 damages.
Statement of Defence. Statement 1. The defendant admits the allegations contained in the of defence. 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the statement of claim, save in so
far as it is there alleged that the riding light of the said barge was duly exhibited and burning brightly.
2. The said barge “ R.," at the time in the said statement mentioned, was at anchor in the fairway of the river Thames, but the said barge did not exhibit the usual riding light as provided by the bye-laws and regulations then in force under and by virtue of the Acts of Parliament regulating the navigation of the river Thames, nor was there any light exhibited or
burning on board the said barge. Contribu- 3. The defendant denies that he improperly or negligently tory negligence.
navigated the “H.” as in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim alleged, or in any other way, and says that the said collision in the said paragraph complained of, was occasioned or contributed to by the neglect or default of the plaintiff or his servants in not exhibiting as aforesaid a light on board the said barge, or in not having taken measures to warn the defendant and those on board the “H." of the position of the said barge by hailing or otherwise, whereby the defendant was unable to make out the said barge until it was too late to avoid a collision with the said barge.
4. The defendant denies the allegations contained in the
4th paragraph of the statement of claim. Limitation
5. At the time of the occurrences in the statement of claim of liability under Mer. mentioned, the defendant was in charge of and navigating the chant Ship- “H.” as a duly licensed Trinity House pilot for the district in ping Act,
which the said collision occurred, and on his appointment as 1864.
such Trinity House pilot had executed a bond for £100, conditioned as in the 372nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act provided, and the amount of pilotage payable to the defendant in respect of the voyage upon which he was then engaged, was the sum of £2 128. 6d.
6. If the said collision occurred through any neglect, default or want of skill of the defendant (which the defendant denies), such neglect, default or want of skill, was neglect, default or want of skill within the meaning of the 373rd section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1864 ; and the defendant is not liable
in respect of such neglect, default or want of skill, beyond the said sum of £100, and the said sum of £2 12s. 6d.
Action against Owner of Ship for Negligence causing Collision. 1. The plaintiffs are the owners of the steam-ship“Velocity," Claim by
several the master and crew of the said steam-ship, and the owners of
plaintiffs the cargo laden therein at the time of the collision herein- against after mentioned. The defendants are the owners of the steam
for negli2. The “Velocity,” a screw steam-ship of 259 gross tons gence causregister, and manned by a crew of hands all told, left lision. London on the morning of the 20th December, 1876, bound for Calais with a cargo.
3. About 6.20 a.m. on the same day, the wind at the time being S.E. a moderate breeze, the weather dark and rainy, and the tide-ebb of the force of about three knots an hour, the “Velocity,” in the prosecution of her said voyage, was in the Tower Hope Reach, proceeding under steam at the rate of about six knots per hour, and keeping her course down the river rather to the northward of mid-channel. Her proper regulation lights were duly exhibited and burning brightly, and a good look-out was being kept on board of her.
4. Under these circumstances a dim white light, which proved to be the riding light of the steam-ship“ Halby," was seen by those on board the “Velocity” at the distance of about three ships' lengths, nearly ahead, but a little on the port bow withal. The helm of the “Velocity” was immediately put hard-a-port, but it was impossible to clear the “ Halby,” and the anchor chain of the “Halby” caught the port side of the “ Velocity ” about the waist, inflicting such serious damage that the “Velocity " sank almost immediately.
5. The “Halby" was in fault within the true intent and meaning of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 17, on account of the improper condition of her riding light.
6. The aforesaid collision, and the damage consequent thereon, were solely occasioned by the neglect and improper conduct of those on board the “Halby," in neglecting to exhibit a proper riding light in accordance with the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, and in neglecting to indicate to those on board the “ Velocity” the position of the “ Halby."
The plaintiffs the G. Steam Nav. Co. claim the value of the
said steam-ship“ Velocity.” The plaintiffs the master and crew of the steam-ship
“Velocity," claim the value of their effects. The plaintiffs the owners of the cargo laden on board the
“Velocity" claim the value thereof.
Statement of defence.
Statement of Defence. 1. About 6.15 a.m. of the 20th December, 1876, the “ Halby,” which is a brig-rigged iron screw-steamer of 994 tons register, and 120 horse-power nominal, manned by a crew of forty-four hands, and in charge of a duly licensed pilot, was lying at anchor in the river Thames, abreast of the Mucking Light, and in about mid-channel, by her port anchor and about forty-five fathoms of chain. On the previous afternoon, whilst prosecuting her voyage from Liverpool to London, she had come to anchor in consequence of the thickness of the weather.
2. The wind at about 6.15 a.m. was blowing a moderate breeze from the S.W., the weather was showery, and the sky overcast, but the banks of the river on both sides were visible. The tide was ebb, of the force of about three knots an hour, and the “ Halby" had a proper regulation anchor light attached to the foretop-gallant-stay, and duly exhibited, and burning brightly, and in addition had an ordinary globe light hoisted on the flagstaff over the taffrail, and was lying at anchor with her helm a little to port, and a proper watch was being kept on board of her.
3. Under these circumstances the masthead and green lights of the “Velocity ” were seen a little on the "Halby's" starboard bow, and apparently about half a mile off. The “ Velocity " approached at great speed, and exhibited her red light, and although she was hailed from the “Halby," she continued to approach rapidly, shut in her green light, and attempted to cross the bow of the “ Halby," but she caught the chain of the “Halby," and came into collision with her, whereby she sustained the damage (if any) mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the statement of claim.
4. Those on board of the “Velocity” neglected to keep a proper look-out.
5. Those on board the “ Velocity” neglected to take proper Statement
of defence. measures for keeping the “ Velocity” clear of the “ Halby."
6. The “ Velocity” was being navigated at an improper speed.
7. The said collision and damage consequent thereon were occasioned by the neglect and default of those on board the “ Velocity," and were not in any way occasioned by any neglect or default on the part of those on board the “ Halby.”
8. Save as herein admitted and appears, the defendants deny the truth of the allegations in the statement of claim.
Granite against one of its Sides. 1. The plaintiff J. M. is the owner and the plaintiffs the Claim for L. P. Co. are the tenants of the C. Wharf, situate in P., in the injury to
wharf by county of Middlesex.
occupier. (a) Where the nuisance is a public one and indictable, an action will
Where not lie at the suit of a private person, unless he sustains special damage nuisance beyond that sustained by the other persons affected by it. (Ricket v.
indictable Metropolitan Rail. Co., L. R. 2 H. L. 175; Winterbottom v. Lord Derby,
plaintiff L. R. 2 Ex, 316; Benjamin y. Storr, L. R. 9 C. P. 400 ; Mc Carthy v.
must have Vetropolitan Board of Works, L. R. 8 C. P. 191, Ex. Ch., and L. R. 7
sustained H. L. 243.) Nor is a private person justified in abating a nuisance.
exceptional (Arnold v. Holbrook, L. R. 8 Q. B. 96.)
damage. Where the defendant built a house with an area which was left unfenced near a public footpath, and a person had fallen into the area Injury, while passing along the footway with ordinary care in the night, the through defendant was held liable, though the plaintiff had accidentally deviated defective from the public footpath, and so inadvertently become a trespasser. fencing by (Barnes v. Ward, 19 L. J. C. P. 195; Hadley v. Taylor, L. R. 1 c. P.53.) or near
It would have been otherwise had the area been distant from the path. public path (16.) And where a foot-passenger missed his way along a public path orbighway. and strayed into a reservoir made by the defendants near to but not substantially adjoining the path, they were held not to be liable, though the jury found the reservoir was dangerous, and that the foot-passenger had used ordinary care. (Hardcastie v. South Yorkshire Rail. Co., 28 L. J. Ex. 139.)
It is enough to constitute a thing a nuisance that it renders the enjoy. Rule as to ment of life and property uncomfortable. (R. v. White, 1 Burr. 337, what conper Lord Mansfield.) To erect anything offensive so near the house of stitutes a another as to make it uninhabitable, such as a forge, is a nuisance. Com. nuisance. Dig. Action on the Case for Nuisance. (A.) But semble the keeping of a
Decisions. kennel so near the plaintiff's house that the noise of the dogs prevented the family from sleeping at night and disturbed them by day, is not a nuisance-at least on a finding of a jury to this effect the Court refused to disturb the verdict ; but the Court would in such a case have upheld the verdict had they found it a nuisance. (See Crump v. Lambert, L. R. 3