United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

In the beginning of 1900 the Corporation of the Borough of Shoreditch, who were both the sewer and the highway authority for the borough, laid down a new sewer in a trench three feet wide made by them down the centre of Buttesland Street, which was twenty-four feet wide from kerb to kerb.

In April 1900 the work was finished in that part of Buttesland Street that lay between Great Chart Street and Pitfield Street, the trench was filled up, and the street was opened for traffic.

Fourteen days after the trench was filled up and six days after the street was opened, Mr Bull was being driven home at night in a hansom cab. The cab came down Great Chart Street, which lies at right angles to Buttesland Street and crossed the site of the trench to the near side of Buttesland Street. Tho driver, finding that the near side of the street felt soft, and thinking

Page: 474↓

that the off side might be better, drove across the site of the trench to the off side of the street. Shortly thereafter he drove into a heap of rubbish which had been improperly shot into the street close to the kerb by a carman not in the employment of the Corporation, and over whom they had no control, without their permission. As a result the cab was upset and Mr Bull injured. In respect of these injuries he brought an action against the corporation for damages.

The action was tried before Darling, J., and a Jury on August 1, 1901. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the Judge gave judgment for the Corporation, holding that there was no evidence of misfeasance to go to a jury. On appeal the Court of Appeal on 14th December 1901 ordered a new trial.

The new trial took place in April 1902 before Phillimore, J., and a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the Judge intimated that he would have non-suited the plaintiff if it had not been for the decision of the Court of Appeal, but in view of that decision he would take the answers of the jury on certain questions.

The following questions were put to the jury, who returned the following answers:—1. Was the left half of the road down Buttesland Street from Great Chart Street to Pitfield Street dangerous to traffic?—Yes, sufficiently to warrant the driver in crossing from the near to the off side. 2. Was it the part which had been excavated, or the part to the left hand of that which had been excavated?—Both, but chiefly the trench. 3. Was the work properly finished by defendants after the trench was completed?—Yes, it was properly finished at the time, but rain had spoiled it. 4. Did the cabman go over to the off-side owing to the work not being properly finished?—Yes. The foreman of the jury—We do not intend to say that he went over to the off-side because the road was not properly finished, but that he went to the off-side on account of the state of the road. 5. Was the heap of rubbish put there by direction of the vestry or its servants?—No. 6. Was it put there by permission of the vestry or its servants?—No. The jury added as a rider that the road was properly finished, but had become dangerous in the six or seven days since it was open to traffic.

After argument the judge gave judgment for the defendants.

On appeal the Court of Appeal ( Collins, M.R., and Mathew, L.J., Romer, L.J Dubitante) reversed this decision and ordered judgment to be entered for the plaintiff.

The defendants appealed.

At the conclusion of the appellants' arguments their Lordships gave judgment without calling on counsel for the respondent.