Guardians Armagh Union v Bell

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date24 January 1900
Date01 January 1900
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Ireland)
Guardians Armagh Union
and
Bell (1).

Q. B. Div.

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1900.

Locomotives Acts, 1861, 1865 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 70; 28 & 29 Vict. c. 83; — Traction engine — Nuisance — Highway.

The defendant was the owner of a steam traction-engine. Whilst being driven by the defendant's servants along the streets of K., it injured the water-and sewer-pipes of the plaintiffs (the urban sanitary authority) laid beneath the street. It was admitted that there was no negligence in the management of the machine, and that the engine was constructed in conformity with the Locomotives Acts, 1861 and 1865. It was, however, found as a fact that the plaintiffs' pipes were laid at a depth below the surface of the streets sufficient to protect them from injury by ordinary traffic, but not sufficient to protect them from injury by the defendant's traction-engine. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages in the County Court; and on case stated by the Judge of Assize:—

Held, that the defendant was liable upon the ground that a traction-engine being exceptionally calculated to inflict such damage, and injury having resulted from its use that would not have resulted from ordinary traffic, the defendant was liable in damages for such injury, and that the Locomotives Acts did not restrict his liability.

Case Stated, under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 99, sect. 35, for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division by the Lord Chief Baron, upon the hearing before him at the Armagh Summer Assizes, 1899, of a civil bill appeal from a dismissal on the merits by the County Court Judge. The case was to the following effect:—

The civil bill was brought by the plaintiffs, as the rural sanitary authority of the district, to recover £2 19s. 8d., for damages alleged to have been done by the defendant's traction engine to a main water-pipe and to a sewer-pipe, the property of the plaintiffs, laid under two streets in the town of Keady, and for damages for negligence in the management of the said traction engine. It was admitted by the plaintiffs' counsel that the defendant's traction engine was constructed in compliance with the provisions of sect. 5 of the Locomotives Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 73), which adopts

the limitations of weight and width of wheels contained in sect. 3 of the Locomotives Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 70). It was also admitted that the amount claimed was correct. The learned Lord Chief Baron found as a fact that the damage complained of was done by the defendant's traction engine; that the defendant was not guilty of negligence in the management of the traction engine; and that the plaintiffs' water-pipe and sewer-pipe were laid at a depth below the surface of the streets sufficient to protect them from injury by ordinary traffic, but not sufficient to protect them from injury by the defendant's traction engine. Campbell, Q.C., for the plaintiffs, relied upon sect. 12 of the Locomotives Act, 1865, which provided that nothing therein contained should affect the right of any person to recover damages in respect of any injury he may have sustained in consequence of the use of a locomotive. C. Murphy, for the defendant, relied on sect. 5 of the same Act, authorizing the use on any public highway of any locomotive constructed in compliance with the requirements of the Act, and contended that the defendant was not liable for damage to drains and pipes laid at a depth below the surface insufficient to protect them from injury by traction engines constructed in compliance with the Act; he also contended that the word “person” in sect. 12 did not include a corporate body, and that the word “injury” in the same section did not refer to damage to property of the existence of which the defendant was necessarily unaware, but could only refer to damage caused by the negligent use or management of a locomotive. Upon the request of both parties the present case was stated upon the question whether upon the facts stated the defendant was liable to the plaintiffs for the damage done by his traction engine to their water-pipe and sewer-pipe.

Davison (Campbell, Q.C., with him), for the plaintiffs.

C. Murphy and Hume, Q.C. (Gordon, Q.C., with them), for the defendant.

[In addition to the authorities referred to in the judgments the following cases were cited during the argument:—Egerly'sCase (1); Watkins v. Reddin (2); Reg. v. Chittenden (3); Jeffrey v. St. Paneras Vestry (4).]

Cur. adv. vult.

Davison (Campbell, Q.C., with him), for the plaintiffs.

C. Murphy and Hume, Q.C. (Gordon, Q.C., with them), for the defendant.

Sir P. O'Brien, L.C.J.:—

This case is of considerable practical importance. The use of traction engines is becoming—indeed has become—very general, and it is important that the owners of these engines, and the general public, should be acquainted with the law in relation to them. There is a prevalent impression that if a traction engine is constructed pursuant to statutable requirements, and is in its progress preceded by flag and man in the prescribed way, then, in the absence of negligence by the owner or his servants, no liability attaches to such owner for damage resulting from the use of the engine. It is generally thought that compliance with statutable requirements, and the absence of negligence, afford a complete justification for all damage that may flow from the use of the engine. This is not so. Even though there be a complete compliance with statutable requirements and no negligence, yet still the owner of the traction engine is undoubtedly amenable to an action at law for damages if the use of the engine is fraught with danger, and if damage, which would not have been caused by ordinary traffic, results from its use.

The present case, in which we hold the defendant liable, clearly illustrates the proposition I have laid down. The facts of the case, which has been reserved for our consideration by my Lord Chief Baron, are as follows. The plaintiffs are the Rural Sanitary Authority for the Rural Sanitary District of the Armagh Union. The defendant was the owner of a traction engine plying between Keady and Armagh; and the plaintiffs sued the defendant to recover £2 19s. 8d., being the amount of damage alleged to have been done by the defendant's traction engine to a main water-pipe and to a sewer-pipe, both the property of the plaintiffs, laid under two streets in the town of Keady. It was admitted that there was no negligence in the management of the engine. It was admitted also that the defendant's traction engine was

constructed in compliance with the statutable requirements, both as to weight and otherwise.

The Lord Chief Baron found as a fact that the damage complained of was done by the defendant's traction engine, and that there was no negligence; but in the seventh paragraph of the case he tells us that he found as a fact that the plaintiffs' water-pipe and sewer-pipe were laid at a depth below the surface of the streets sufficient to protect them from injury by ordinary traffic, but not sufficient to protect them from injury by the defendant's traction engine. I repeat and emphasize the words “sufficient to protect them from injury by ordinary traffic, but not sufficient to protect them from injury by the defendant's traction engine,”...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT