|Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions||
swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Personal Injury - From: 1849 To: 1899
This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 07 July 2015.
Longmeid -v- Holliday; 1851 - (1851) 6 Ex 761;  EngR 583; (1851) 6 Exch 761; (1851) 155 ER 752
Mitchell And His Wife, -v- Chrassweller and Another; 27-Jan-1853 -  EngR 174; (1853) 13 CB 237; (1853) 138 ER 1189
Wootton -v- Dawkins  EngR 408; (1857) 2 CB NS 412; (1857) 140 ER 477
18 Apr 1857
Personal Injury, Torts - Other
The plaintiff entered the defendant’s garden at night, and without his permission, to search for a stray fowl, and, whilst looking closely into some bushes, he came in contact with a wire, which caused something to explode with a loud noise, knocking him down and slightly injuring his face and eyes: Held, that the defendant was not liable for this injuryt common law, nor, in the absence of evidence that it was caused by a spring-gun or other engine “calculated to inflict grievous bodily harm,” under the statute 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 18, s. I.
[ Commonlii ]
Jane Birkett, Executrix Of John Birkett, Deceased -v- The Whitehaven Junction Railway Company  EngR 649; (1859) 4 H & N 730; (1859) 157 ER 1029
31 May 1859
[ Commonlii ]
Limpus -v- The London General Omnibus Company; 1861 -  EngR 53; (1861) 2 F & F 640; (1861) 175 ER 1221
Lynch -v- Knight; HL 1861 - (1861) 9 HLC 577
Bolch -v- Smith  EngR 369; (1862) 7 H & N 736; (1862) 158 ER 666
30 Jan 1862
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
[ Commonlii ]
Limpus -v- London General Omnibus Company; CExC 23-Jun-1862 - (1862) 1 H&C 526;  EngR 839; (1862) 1 H & C 526; (1862) 158 ER 993
Read -v- Great Eastern Railway Company; 1868 - [1867-78] LR 3 QB 555
Foulkes -v- Metropolitan District Railway Co (1880) 5 CPD 157
Personal Injury, Contract
The court considered the liability of a railway company where the plaintiff had bought his ticket from one railway company, but claimed liability from another which had undertaken responsibility for part of the services to be rendered to the plaintiff under the contract evidenced by the ticket.
Haigh -v- Royal Mail Steampacket Co Ltd  52 LJ QB 640
Damages, Personal Injury
“‘personal injury’ is not ‘loss’ because a limb may be broken without being lost. The word ‘injury’ would certainly have been more apt, but the word ‘damage’ can certainly mean personal injury”.
Brunsden -v- Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141
Personal Injury, Damages
The defendant had negligently caused damage to a cab driver and his vehicle in the same accident. The cab driver obtained damages for the damage to his vehicle. Held: He was not disentitled from bringing fresh proceedings for damages for personal injury. There were two causes of action. Bowen LJ discussed the single action rule, saying: "Nobody can doubt that if the plaintiff had recovered any damages for injury to his person, he could not have maintained a further action for fresh bodily injuries caused by the same act of negligence, merely because they had been discovered or developed subsequently." The rule is based on the maxim interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium, "otherwise great oppression might be done under colour and pretence of law."
Wakelin -v- London and South Western Railway Co; HL 1886 - (1886) 12 App Cas 41
Joseph Smith (Pauper) -v- Charles Baker & Sons; HL 21-Jul-1891 -  UKHL 2;  AC 325
Penny -v- Wimbledon Urban District Council; 1898 -  2 QB 212
|Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.|