Scott v London Dock Co [1865]

FACTS:

This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of Exchequer in making absolute a rule to set aside the verdict for the defendants and for a new trial.

The defendants were in possession of a warehouse, and were operating a certain crane or machine for lowering goods at the time of the accident.  The Defendants and their servants were lowering the crane or machine, with bags of sugar onto the stone pavement in the Docks at St Katherines at the time of the accident.

The Claimant, an officer of the Customs could not find who he was looking for, so made inquiries and was told he was in a warehouse, which was pointed out to him.  When passing lawfully from the doorway of one warehouse to the other, he fell to the ground as six bags of sugar which were being lowered to the ground from the upper part of the warehouse by the crane fell on him. The Claimant said that he had no warning, and there was no fence or barrier to show persons that the place was dangerous, and nobody called out to him to stop him from going through the door or under the hoist. He also said that instantly before the bags fell he “heard the rattling of a chain

The Defendant’s pleaded not guilty.

The learned Judge found that there was not sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the Defendants to entitle him to leave the case to the jury.  His Lordship then directed the jury to find verdict for the Defendants.

HELD:

Erle , C. J held that the majority of the Court came to the following conclusions.

“There must be reasonable evidence of negligence.  But where the thing is shown to be under the management of the Defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.”

The judges all agreed to the principles laid down in the cases cited for the Defendants although the judgment turned on the construction to be put on the Judge’s notes. Erle CJ and Mellor found that they could not find reasonable evidence of negligence which has been apparent to the rest of the Court.

The judgment of the Court was affirmed, and the case was ordered to go to a new trial, when the effect of the evidence will in all probability be more correctly ascertained.

The Judgment was affirmed and appeal dismissed.

Related posts:

1. White v London Transport Executive [1971]
2. Cleland v London General Insurance Co Ltd [1935]