Star.
London, England, 1816-12-21 00:00:00

L.IW INTILLIGANCE.

---

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, DECEMBER so.
JONES V. BOYCE.
This was an action by the butler of General Mor-
gan, to recover damages from the Proprietors of the
Colchester Sage Coach, called the Eclipse, for the
loss of a le; which the plaintiff sustained in conse-
,
ttence of the negligence of the defendant's Servant,
its'-the passage from Brentwood, in Essex, towards
London.
The case made out on the part of the plaintiff was
in effect this:
The coach, upon the outside of which the plaintiff
was a passenger, having changed horses at the Swan
Inn, ISrent,wood, on its way to London, was driving
off at a moderate pace, when the coupling rein of the
leaders suddenly broke, and the year-wheel horse hay.
ing got one of his legs over the traces, the whole four
animals set off at great speed, apparently in a fright.
'1 he coachman, in order to stop the coach and arrest
the progress of the horses, guided them a* as to bring '
the near wheels into a kennel by the road side, and
carry the Vehicle in contact with a post upon the
causeway; but before it reached the post one or two
piles, which supported the causeway, broke, in the
progress of the coach, and eventually the post formed
an impediment to its further progress, but not with-
out a considerable concussion by the impetuosity of
the horses. The plaintiff and some other passengers
who were on the-hinder part of the coach, terrified
.a; what they supposed to be the impending danger of
being overturned, chose the alternative of jumping
into the road, and they all reached the round in
safety except the plaintiff, who, in his fall, unfortu-
nately fractured one of his legs so dreadfully as to
render almost immediate amputation necessary. The
bones of the limb forced their way through his stock-
ing and his boot, presenting a horrid spectacle of
human suffering. He was raised from the ground,
and every surgical-care was taken of him, but with-
out saving the leg, which was soon afterwards ampu-
tated. The principal circumstance relied upon to
support die plaintiff's claim and establish the defen-
dant's liability was the imperfection of therein which
had broken, and was primarily the cause of the mis-

fortune.
It appeared from the evidence of a harness-maker,
named Wallis, that the reins had been afterwards sent
to him for repair, but he found them to be in so de-
cayed a state as to be unsafe for any future use, and
in fact they were never afterwards used.
The Arepanar-Gamotac contended, that to sup-
port the right of action in this case, it was not neces-
sary that the person should be thrown from the body
of the coach ; for if a party was placed in such a
situation that he was compelled to m ike a painful
and dangerous choice of alternatives, either ta run the
risk of falling with the vehicle, or of jumping off to
avoid the impending danger, the coach-owner was
liable for an accident happening from such choice.
The cause of the accident was the insufficiency of the
traces; and if the plaintiff, from a well-grounded ap-
prehension of being overturned, precipit -tied himself
from the coach, the defendant was clearly liable for
his misfortune. It appeared that the surgical and
medical care bestowed upon the plaintiff amounted to
between 460 and A7O.
Mr. Torrtxo addressed the Jury on the part (Jib.
derClldart, ratiarbSCS for the pur-
pose of shewing that no blame was imputable to
Snow, the coachman, by whose skilful management
of the horses the coach was drawn against the post
in questior, so as to avoid accident ; that he had''
reined in the horses to prevent any violent collision,
and that in fact the coach experienced no shock, so
as to cause a well-grounded apprehension of being
overturned.
These circumstances were distinctly sworn to by a
bop-factor in the Borough, named Ellis, one of the
outside passengers ; by Wicks, the keeper of the inn
at Brentwood ; and by Snow, the coachman.
One of the defendant's witnesses stated, that in a
conversation with the plaintiff, some time after the
accident, the latter said that he should have cleared
the coach unhurt, had he not been caught by the coat
by a young woman in the dickey, in consequence of
which lie was turned round in the descent; and that
the misfortune was attributable to that citetunstance.
The ATTORIMV-GESERAL having addressed ibe
Jury in reply.
. Lord ELLENBOROUGH charged them, that if they
were satisfied that the deficiency of the harness was
she cause of the coach running against the post, and
that the position of the vehicle at that time occasioned
a sufficient ground et alarm and apprehension, so as
to make it necessary, in a reasonable person's judg-
ment, for the plaintiff, with a view to self-preserva-
tion, to jump off the coach, then the action was main.
tamable. his Lordship adopted the principle of law
contended for, that it was not necessary, to maintain
thraction, that the party should be thrown from the
'body of the coach ; for if the person is placed in
such a situation that he is compelled to make a pain-
ful and dangerous choice of alternatives, by jumping
off the coach to avoid the ultimate chance of being
violently cast off, and that position of things is in-
duced by the misconduct of the person to whom be
has committed his safety, the action is certainly main,
tainablt. But in a case where there is no danger to
be apprehended in the mind of a reasonable man,
certainly the coach-owner would not be answerable
for the timorous rashness of a nervous person throw.
ing himself heedlessly from the vehicle, ander a mis-
, conceived notion of his danger." The principal cit.
• camatance which pressed against the defendant was
the insufficiency of the rein, which was not contra-
called on his behalf. It was
dieted by any wanes:
rather extraordinary that none of the other persons
who had jumped off the coach had been called as
witnesses ; but in their absence it was a fair ground
of presumption that there must have been some well.
founded apprehension of danger induce them all,
by one simultaneous act, to precipitate themselves
from the coach. His Lordship, after recapitulating
the circumstances of the case, left the Jury to decide
she question upon the principles which he had laid
down- The Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff,
Damages sew.
. • . CORRIZ V. COLE! AHD OTHERS.
This was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and
delivered by the piaintiffs, who are merchants and
brokers. ea:gimes. business jit Liverpool and Lon-
don. to. *I e.digeadmiks Messrs.. Coles, brothep,
Waged biker, William Garnet, and De