Common Bench Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Common Pleas, and in the Exchequer Chamber [1856-1865] .... New Series Volume 10

Common Bench Reports; Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Common Pleas, and in the Exchequer Chamber [1856-1865] .... New Series Volume 10

List price: US$19.67

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1862 edition. Excerpt: ...if such inadvertence or mistake might have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care. Parke, B., in delivering thejudgment of the court, there says: "Upon reviewing the cases upon thissubject, the decisions and dicta will not be found altogether uniform, and some uncertainty still remains as to the trde ground on which cases are taken out of the operation of these notices. In Bodenham v. Bennett, 4 Price, 34, Wood, B., considers that these notices were introduced for the purpose of protecting carriers from extraordinary events, and not meant to exempt them from due and ordinary care. On the other hand, in some cases it has been said that the carrier is not by his notice protected from the consequences of mis feasance (Lord Ellenborough, in Beck v. Evans, 16 East, 2&7); and that the true construction of the words ' lost or damaged ' in such a notice, is, that the carrier is protected from the consequences of negligence or misconduct in the carriage of goods, but not if he divests himself wholly of the charge committed to his care, and of the character of carrier: Bayley, J., and Holroyd, J., in Garnett v. Willan, 5 B. & Ald. 57, 60. In many other cases, it is said he is still responsible for ' gross negligence: ' but in so1ne of them that term has been defined in such a way as to mean ordinary negligence (Story on Bailments, 11), that is, the want of such care as a prudent man would take of his own property: Best, J., in Butson v. Donovan, 4 B. 85 Ald. 30, and Dallas, C. J., in Dufi v.Dodd, 3 Brod. 85 B. 182. The weight of authority seems to be in favour of the doctrine, that, in order to render a carrier liable after such a notice, it is not necessary to prove a total abandonment of that...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 284 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 15mm | 513g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236795814
  • 9781236795816