02.04.2013 Views

Odger's English Common Law

Odger's English Common Law

Odger's English Common Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DEFENCES. 495<br />

The wife, husband, parent and child are entitled to share in<br />

the damages awarded in the manner indicated by the jury. 1<br />

If there be no legal personal representative, or if he will not<br />

take action, any one of these beneficiaries can sue on behalf<br />

of himself and the others.<br />

In such an action the plaintiffs must prove that the defen-<br />

dant was guilty of some wrongful act, neglect or default which<br />

•caused the death, and that the death has caused pecuniary<br />

loss to the plaintiffs arising from their relationship with the<br />

deceased, not from any contract with him. Such damage is<br />

of the essence of the action. Some appreciable pecuniary<br />

loss must be shown to satisfy the provisions of the Act. 2 No<br />

solatium will be awarded either for the pain and suffering of<br />

the deceased or for the affliction of his relatives. 3 The<br />

plaintiffs must prove that they had a reasonable expectation<br />

of pecuniary benefit, had the deceased remained alive. 4<br />

Thus a father cannot recover, either at common law or under Lord<br />

^Campbell's Act, the funeral expenses to which he lias been put in<br />

burying an unmarried infant daughter, whose death was caused by the<br />

•defendant's negligence, and who was residing with her father at the time<br />

of her death. 5<br />

But in assessing damages in any action under this Act " there shall not<br />

be taken into account any sum paid or payable on the death of the deceased<br />

under any contract of assurance or insurance." 6<br />

Defences.<br />

As soon as the plaintiff has thus established a prima facie<br />

case, it is incumbent on the defendant to bring forward his<br />

defence. The defences most frequently raised to an action of<br />

negligence are<br />

—<br />

(i.) Accident.<br />

(ii.) Vis major •.<br />

(Hi.) Contributory negligence.<br />

1 But see Dickinson v. N. E. By. Co. (1863), 2 H. & C. 735 ; Wood v.. Gray f<br />

JSons, [1892] A. C. 576 ; Stimpson v. Wood (1888), 36 W. B. 734.<br />

2 Duckworth v. Johnson (1859), i II. & i\. 653.<br />

s<br />

•<br />

Blake v. Midland By. Co. (1852), 18 Q. B. 93.<br />

Hetherington v. N. E. By. Co. (1882), 9Q. B. J>. 160.<br />

5 Osborn v. Gillett (1873), L. R. 8 Ex. 88 ; approved in<br />

JSeneral Omnibus Co., Ltd., [1906] 2 K. B. 648.<br />

6 Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII. c. 7), a. 1.<br />

Clarh v London

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!