Hide Articles List

24 articles on this Page

Advertising

Newtown Difficulty Solved.

ADVANTAGES OF CAPONISING.

Advertising

REARING THE DAIRY CALF.

Advertising

OUR DEFICIENCIES IN POULTRY…

The Question of Health.

AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATION.

Advertising

Advertising

Llanidloes Councillors.)

HUNTING APPOINTMENTS.\

CAMBRIAN RAILWAYS.

Advertising

J CONTRIBUTIONS AGINAL AND…

HOW THE LUNGS BECOME DISEASED.

CANADIAN FARMERS AND TARIFF…

SMALL HOLDINGS.

A FARMER'S LIABILITY.

BUSINESS MEN'S SLEEP.

OUR DEFICIENCIES IN POULTRY…

AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATION.

A FARMER'S LIABILITY.

News
Cite
Share

passer was entitled to maintain an action for injuries caused to him by an animal known to its owner to be ferocious, but not kept by him for the purpose of doing injury to people. The plaintiff, a labourer, was walking through one of the fields owned by the defendant, a farmer at Birch Hill, Cumberland. He was taking a short cut habitually used by the public going to the railway station, when he was attacked and severely bitten by a horse belonging to the defendant, who knew it to be vicious. In the Whitehaven and Milsom County Court the plaintiff was awarded X100, but on appeal by the defendant to the King's Bench Division this award was set aside, the Court holding that the plaintiff was a trespasser, and there- fore could not maintain the action. From that decision the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. There Lord Justices Vaughan Wil- liams and Kennedy held that, there being no evidence on which an invitation to the public to use the field as a near cut could be inferred, the defendant was not liable. Lord Justice Buckley dissented from that view. In his opinion, when a man habitually allowed people to cross his field, although they might be tres- passers, the owner of the field must take reasonable care to protect those people. By a majority, therefore, the decision of the Divi- sional Court in favour of the defendant was affirmed. The plaintiff then appealed this House, and obtained leave to sue in forma pauperis." The Lord Chancellor moved that the appeal should be allowed. The County Court judge, he held, had not decided whether there was a right of way or not, and had found there was no express leave, but the effect of the finding was that the plaintiff was in the field by the tacit permission of the defendant, that this way across the field had been used habitually as a near cut, and that the defendant knew the horse to be dangerous. The defendant ought not without notice of the danger to the public allowed a vicious horse to be in the field. The other Lords gave judgment to a like effect, and accordingly the appeal was allowed.