2-'3G DAMAGE THROUGH BADLY COXSTRUCTED TRUCK. 



Eric J. said : " I think that the plaiiitifT entered into a contract by 

 which he nndertook not to call npou tlie company for any damage, such 

 as that ^vhich has accrned. I take it that the carriage was fit for the 

 journey, and fit for the weight, and that the damage has entirely arisen 

 from the freight being living animals, who made an effort to escape, 

 and so injured themselves. That seems to me to be a risk for which 

 the comi)any peculiarly said that they would not be responsible. I 

 think that limitation, however wide in its terms, being in respect of 

 live stock, is reasonable ; for though domestic animals might be 

 carried safely, it might almost be impossible to carry wild ones without 

 injury." Coleridtjo J. thus remarked on Lyon v, Mells : "■ The counsel 

 for the appellants allows that to take the ticket literally, would be to 

 exempt the company in all cases whatever against any risks of con- 

 veyance, and against any injury or damage accruing to the animals 

 while travelling, but says that it cannot be construed so literally, and 

 resting on the authority of Lijon v. Mells, seeks to introduce a quali- 

 fication that the carriage is to be fit for the journey, or, to borrow a 

 phrase from contracts of insurance, ' sea-worthy.' Now the case of 

 Ltjon V. Mells was purely one of construction also. The Court rea- 

 soned from the particular exception in the case of want of ordinary care 

 in the master and the crew, that it must be intended that want of ordi- 

 nary care in the owner was also excepted ; and that it was a want of 

 ordinary care on his part, in not providing a proper vessul. Now the 

 words here do not leave us open to adopt any such ground of con- 

 struction as in that case. Tlie plaintiff had a full op^jortunity of know- 

 ing what the carriage was, for it is found that he saw one of the beasts 

 put into it." 



In Avsiin v. I he Manchester, Sheffichl, d- Lincolnshire Railway Com- 

 pany, the doctrine of non-liahillty n-as si retched to its ntmost liniils. 

 The declaration, which was in case, contained two counts, and alleged 

 in the second that the defendants were pro})rictors of a railway and 

 carriages used for the conveyance of horses from New Holland to 

 Bhoreditch for hire ; and that plaintiffs, at the request of the defend- 

 ants, delivered to them, and they received, horses to be carried for the 

 plaintiffs by the defendants in a carriage for reward ; and that while 

 the horses were being conveyed in the carriage (which with the loco- 

 motive power thereof was under the sole control of the defendants) 

 the ivheel of tlie carriaye took fire, of ivhich the defeiulants, at a convenient 

 time and place, had notice, and were requested by plaintiffs not to per- 

 sist further in carrying the horses in the carriage ; but defendants ])qv- 

 sistcd, and the wheel took fire again for want of due precaution, and 

 broke, and the carriage was consequently thrown out of its proper posi- 



