Waller v The Midland Great Western Railway (Ireland) Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 May 1879
• Date: 16 May 1879
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Appeal.

Before MORRIS, C. J., DEASY and FITZGIBBON, L.JJ.

WALLER

and

THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) COMPANY

Hobbs v. London & South-Western Railway CompanyELR L. R. 10 Q. B. 111.

Hamlin v. Great Northern Railway CompanyENR 1 H. & N. 408.

Cory v. Thames Iron Works CompanyELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 181.

Burton v. PinkertonELR L. R. 2 Ex. 340.

Horne v. Midland Railway CompanyELRELR L. R. 7 C. P. 583; L. R. 8 C. P. 136.

Gee v. Lancashire & Youkshire Rilway CompanyENR 6 H. & N. 211.

Woodger v. Great Western Railway CompanyELR L. R. 2 C. P. 318.

Le Blanche v. London and North-Western Railway Company 1 C. P. Div. 286

Hadley v. BaxendaleENR 9 Ex. 341.

Carriers — Railway Company — Breach of contract — Measure of damages — Remoteness — Failure to provide horse-boxes for conveyance of horses intended for sale at auction — Deterioration by road journey — Condition of animals — Diminution in prices realized.

376 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. W.ALLER v. THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAIL WAY (IRELAND) COMPANY (1). Carriers-Railway Company-Breach of contract-Measure of damagesÂRemoteness-Failure to provide horse-boxes for conveyance of horses intended for sale at auction-Deterioration by road journey-Condition of animals-Diminution in prices realized. A Railway Company having failed to provide horse-boxes, pursuant to conÂtract, for the conveyance of horses for sale by auction in Dublin on the day but one following, the owner was compelled to send them by road, a distance of twenty-four miles, in order that they might arrive in due time for the sale, and for previous inspection by purchasers. The horses, which were valuable hunters, were in soft condition at the time. They were deteriorated in appearÂance by the fatigue of the road journey; one of them was lamed; and such as were sold realized prices below what would have been otherwise obtained, the others being left on the owner's hands. It appeared that if they had been in hard-fed condition they would have borne the journey without injury. The Company's' station-master was, at the time of the contract, aware of the intended sale, and of the day on which it was to take place. Held (reversing the decision of the Queen's Bench Division), that the ComÂpany were not liable in damages for the entire of the loss which the owner sustained in consequence of the injuries occasioned to the horses by the road. journey, but that the measure of damages was the deterioration which the horses, if in ordinary condition and fit to make the journey, would have sufÂfered thereby, and the time and labour expended on the road. APPEAL by the Defendants from an order of the Queen's Bench Division, of the 23rd of November, 1878, refusing a motion by the Defendants to reduce the damages assessed before the Master at £200 to a nominal amount. See the case reported 2 L. R. Ir., 520, where the facts are stated. W. D. Andrews, Q. C., The Mac Dermot, Q. C., and C. Ferguson,- for the Defendants, the Appellants. There was no contract to carry by any particular train, or at any particular time, or for any particular market. • It was not a (1) Before Mums, C. J., Daisy and FITZGIBBON, L.J.J. VOL. IV.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 377 natural consequence of the non-performance of the contract that Appeal. the sale of the Plaintiff's horses should be spoiled, or that they 1879. should become lame ; indeed it is plain from the evidence of the W ALINE Plaintiff's own witnesses that they did not expect the journey MIDLAND would injure them ; the men who knew their condition took them GREATWEST* RY. (IN.) CO. on, thinking no injury would occur. Can that be a natural conseÂquence which these men themselves did not expect ? The Plaintiff was not compelled to take the course he did, in the sense even in which the plaintiffs in Hobbs v. London 8j. South-Western Railway Company (1) were compelled to walk ; he might have kept the horses till next day and rim no risk, there was plenty of stabling to be had; he acted on his own judgment, he was not put in the position of having no other alternative. What the Plaintiff is entitled to is to be put in the same position as he would have been in if the contract had not been broken-to perform the contract himself in a reasonable manner at the expense of the Company : Hamlin v. Great _Northern Railway Company (2). How could the Defendants have thought that walking the horses up would be the alternative adopted, that they would not be rested on the way, that they would. be injured in appearance or lamed, that though walked up on WedÂnesday they would be still in a bad condition on Friday ? All the consequences that flowed from the walk could not be fairly considered to be within the contemplation of the Defendants, and the direct result of the breach of contract ; the circumstance of their being walked by road did not necessarily or naturally involve any injury to the animals. Cory v. Thames Iron Works Company (3), Burton v. Pinkerton (4), Horne v. Midland Railway Company (5), are imÂportant, more...