Blower v Great Western Railway Co (1872) LR 7 CP 655
(Common Carriers)
ON APPEAL
- Wholly attributable to the efforts and exertions of the animal itself; neither the death of the bullock nor its escape from the truck was occasioned by or attributable to the negligence of the company
- The truck was in every respect proper and reasonably sufficient for the conveyance of the bullock and cattle loaded therein; and that there was no actual negligence whatever on the part of the company.contended on behalf of the defendant; these circumstances; not liable because;
- Because they were not guilty of any negligence, and that the bullock met its death and was lost to the plaintiff under circumstances for which they were not responsible.
- The escape and loss of the bullock was attributable to the acts and vice of the animal itself and its own peculiar nature
- The cattle were carried at the plaintiff’s risk and the company were protected from liability by the terms and conditions of the consignment note.
- Pt 9;
- Pt 10;
- Questions for the opinion of the court;
- Whether the company upon the above facts and finding of the county court judge, were common carriers, of the bullock and liable as such for its escape and loss;
- Whether the company were protected from responsibility for the escape and loss by the terms and conditions contained in the consignment note.
- In Jones on Bailments 4th Ed; "a carrier may show in his defence that the goods have perished by some inherent defect, without any fault on his part; for his warranty does not extend to such cases….nature of the goods carried, they are liable to peculiar risks and the carrier takes all reasonable care and uses all proper precautions to prevent injuries, he is excused if they are destroyed in consequences of such risks".
- In Angell on Carriers "And in case of animal sent by railway, its has been ruled that the company are not liable for an accident arising from the animals own viciousness or want of temper".
- (Liability of the company as a Common Carrier); in the absence of special agreement, the company is responsible for any injury which can be prevented by foresight, vigilance and care, though arising from the conduct of the animals, but that he is not an insurer against injuries arising from the nature and propensities of the animals, and which diligent care cannot prevent.
- In Redfield on Railways ; in the absence of evidence of negligence on the part of the company they are not liable
- Keating J
- In the case of Palmer v Grand Junction Ry.Co ; The liability of a common carrier is, subject, to certain well known exceptions, to deliver safely goods entrusted to him; and there is no distinction in this respect between cattle and other goods
- Willes J
- Lord Wensleydale in Wyld v. Pickford;
- Unnecessary to add anything or to heap up authorities on the subject
- Common carrier is liable as an ordinary bailee for negligence; and he is liable for a loss occasioned by negligence even though the act of God or of the Queen’s enemies conduce to the loss.
- Further liable as an insurer for losses which occur through no negligence on his own part
- Only necessary therefore to observe that an insurer is not liable for accidents happening through the inherent vice of the thing insured. But only for such as happen through adventitious causes.
- Goods causing corruption to themselves
- Common carrier is not liable for any loss of damage from the ordinary decay or deterioration of oranges or other fruits in the course of the voyage, from their inherent infirmity or nature, or from the ordinary diminution or evaporation of liquids, or the ordinary leakage from casks etc. (page 6)
- (Question) was then what happened in the course of the journey the result of negligence on the part of the company’s servants? or was it attributable to some inherent vice in the bullock which led to its own destruction.
- The company are clearly bound to provide trucks that are sufficient to retain cattle under the ordinary incidents of a railway journey; but their liability in this respect extends no further (Amies v. Stevens)
- The case expressly finds that "the truck was in every respect proper and reasonable sufficient for the conveyance of the bullock and cattle loaded therein" and that "there was actual negligence whatever on the part of the company or their servants with reference to the bullock or in the receiving or forwarding the same by them".
- The judge finds that the truck was reasonably fit for the conveyance of the animal
- I think the finding excludes the notion of negligence on the part of the company or of the escape of the bullock arising from any other cause than its own inherent vice or restiveness of phrensy; and for such an injury the company are not responsible; the judgment should be in favour of the plaintiff.
- Keating J
; the escape of the bullock was wholly attributable to the efforts and exertions of the animal itself and that its escape was not occasioned by or attributable to the negligence of the company; that the truck was in every respect proper and reasonably fir for the conveyance of the bullock.
; the question of the defendants liability may turn on the distinction between accidents which happen by reason of some vice inherent in the animals themselves or disposition producing unruliness or phrensy, and accidents which are not the result of inherent vice or unruliness of the animals themselves
contended on behalf of the plaintiff; that the company were liable and that the terms and conditions in the consignment note which were relied on by the company were not just and reasonable and were therefore not binding on the plaintiff, and did not protect the company.
Michael Atteya
the death of the bullock was caused solely by its escape from the truck in which it had been loaded, and that it had made its own escape either by clambering over the top rail or by forcing its way between the iron bar and the top rail of the truck.
; upon this state of facts, judge ought to have directed a verdict for the defendants, the company, not being responsible for the consequences of an inherent vice in the thing or animal to be carried, which results in its destruction without any negligence on their part.
