| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Standard of care common carriers or private carriers http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4018 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | JD [ Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Standard of care common carriers or private carriers |
Halsbury's laws, Standard of care. Carriers of passengers, whether common carriers or private carriers, are not insurers of the safety of the persons whom they carry, neither do they warrant the soundness or sufficiency of their vehicles, though they are answerable for defects which careful and reasonable examination of their vehicles would have revealed. Their undertaking is to take all due care, and to carry safely as far as reasonable care and forethought can attain that end. They are responsible for any negligence on the part of their employees which is within the scope of their employment, but not generally for the acts of their independent contractors or of strangers. Carriers are, however, responsible to passengers to whom they are in a contractual relation for the negligence, not only of their employees, but of all persons to whom they delegate any task connected with the carrying of the passenger. The basis of such liability is an implied term in the contract of carriage that the carrier undertakes that due care will be used in carrying the passenger throughout the journey. It does not extend to the negligence of independent contractors in the performance of tasks having nothing to do with such carriage. The registered proprietor of a hackney carriage, such as a taxi, bears a statutory liability for the driver's negligence; and this is so although the relationship between the proprietor and driver is that of bailor and bailee. The obligation upon carriers of persons is to use all due, proper and reasonable care, and the care required is of a very high degree, although the obligation does not appear to be greater than the general duty at common law to take reasonable care in the circumstances to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure the person or property of another. Since the likelihood of injury resulting from any act or omission depends upon the physical presence of the passenger in or on the carrier's vehicle or premises, and not upon the terms upon which he is carried, there is no difference between the standard of care required in gratuitous carriage or carriage for reward. Where, however, the passenger is a trespasser and his presence cannot be foreseen, the carrier's only duty is to avoid the intentional or reckless infliction of harm. There is no authority on the question of the carrier's liability to a foreseeable trespasser, at least as far as the activity of carrying rather than the condition of the vehicle is concerned. 1 See Clarke v West Ham Corpn [1909] 2 KB 858 at 877, CA, per Farwell LJ, and at 882 per Kennedy LJ; Redhead v Midland Rly Co (1869) LR 4 QB 379 at 382, Ex Ch.2 O'Connor v British Transport Commission [1958] 1 All ER 558, [1958] 1 WLR 346, CA.3 See para 601 post.4 'Due care' means, having reference to the nature of the contract to carry, a high degree of care, and casts on carriers the duty of exercising all vigilance to see that whatever is required for the safe conveyance of their passengers is in fit and proper order: Readhead v Midland Rly Co (1869) LR 4 QB 379 at 393 per Montague Smith J, Ex Ch; O'Connor v British Transport Commission [1958] 1 All ER 558, [1958] 1 WLR 346, CA. See also the text and notes 14–16 infra.5 Christie v Griggs (1809) 2 Camp 79; Harris v Costar (1825) 1 C & P 636; Crofts v Waterhouse (1825) 3 Bing 319; Aston v Heaven (1797) 2 Esp 533; Pym v Great Northern Rly Co (1861) 2 F & F 619 at 621; Readhead v Midland Rly Co (1869) LR 4 QB 379, Ex Ch; Gee v Metropolitan Rly Co (1873) LR 8 QB 161, Ex Ch; East Indian Rly Co v Kalidas Mukerjee [1901] AC 396, PC; Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1950] 1 All ER 392 at 403–404, HL, per Lord Radcliffe. The passage in the text was approved in O'Connor v British Transport Commission [1958] 1 All ER 558 at 563, [1958] 1 WLR 346 at 351, CA, per Sellers LJ (railway undertakers entitled to assume that a very young child would be accompanied and cared for by an adult).6 Dudley v Smith (1808) 1 Camp 167; White v Boulton (1791) Peake 113; Ansell v Waterhouse (1817) 6 M & S 385.7 Wright v Midland Rly Co (1873) LR 8 Exch 137.8 Thomas v Rhymney Rly Co (1871) LR 6 QB 266 at 274 per Kelly CB.9 Great Western Rly Co v Blake (1862) 7 H & N 987; Thomas v Rhymney Rly Co (1871) LR 6 QB 266; Self v London, Brighton and South Coast Rly Co (1880) 42 LT 173, CA.10 Daniel v Metropolitan Rly Co (1871) LR 5 HL 45. There is no authority on the liability of the carrier for such acts to a passenger who, while not being a trespasser, is not in a contractual relationship with the carrier, but it is submitted that in this respect the positions of the contractual and non-contractual passenger differ. As to the carrier's duty of care to his passengers generally see para 604 post.11 As to the meaning of 'hackney carriage' see para 505 note 3 ante.12 See the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 s 28 (as amended) (in the metropolitan police district and the City of London); the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s 63 (outside that area); and ROAD TRAFFIC vol 40(2) (Reissue) paras 1067, 1112.13 Keen v Henry [1894] 1 QB 292, CA; Bygraves v Dicker [1923] 2 KB 585.14 Readhead v Midland Rly Co (1869) LR 4 QB 379, Ex Ch; Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1950] AC 185, [1950] 1 All ER 392, HL. See also Madden v Quirke [1989] 1 WLR 702 (duty owed by driver regarding the manner of driving as well as the manner of carriage). For the meaning of 'due care' see note 4 supra.15 Western Scottish Motor Traction Co Ltd v Fernie [1943] 2 All ER 742, HL, distinguished in Wragg v Grout and London Transport Board (1966) 116 LJo 752, CA.16 Harris v Perry & Co [1903] 2 KB 219 at 225, CA, per curiam; Collett v London and North Western Rly Co (1851) 16 QB 984; Lygo v Newbold (1854) 9 Exch 302 at 305, Exch Ct, per Parke B; Great Northern Rly Co v Harrison (1854) 10 Exch 376; Miller v Liverpool Co-operative Society Ltd [1940] 4 All ER 367; Lewys v Burnett and Dunbar [1945] 2 All ER 555. See also Austin v Great Western Rly Co (1867) LR 2 QB 442.17 A person is not a trespasser merely because he has bought a second-class ticket but is found in a first-class compartment: Vosper v Great Western Rly Co [1928] 1 KB 340 at 349 per Atkin LJ.18 Grand Trunk Rly Co of Canada v Barnett [1911] AC 361, PC; Videan v British Transport Commission [1963] 2 QB 650, [1963] 2 All ER 860, CA; Railways Comr v Quinlan [1964] AC 1054, [1964] 1 All ER 897, PC.19 See the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984; and para 601 post. ..................................................... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|