298 



NEGLIGENCE IN TEE USE OF HOESES, ETC. 



Stones left by 

 a sub-con- 

 tractor. 



Statutory 

 duty. 



Surveyor of 

 higtiTvays. 



Works exe- 

 cuted under 

 local acts. 



Both parlies to 

 blame. 



negligent manner in which P. had left the soil of the road 

 over the drain, because P. was not a person exercising the 

 independent business of making and repairing drains, but 

 only a labourer chosen by the defendant in preference to 

 any other person (r). 



But in a case in which the defendants were employed by 

 A. to pave a district, and contracted with B. to pave one of 

 the streets, and B.'s workmen, in the course of paving the 

 street, left some stones at night in such a position as to con- 

 stitute a public nuisance, and the plaintiff was injured by 

 falling over these stones ; it was held that, as no personal 

 interference of the defendants with, or sanction of, the work 

 of laying down the stones was proved, the defendants were 

 not liable («). 



When a surveyor of highways has been ordered by a 

 vestry to do certain works on a highway, and during the 

 performance of those works an accident occurs in conse- 

 quence of the road being left in a dangerous condition, the 

 surveyor is guilty of neglect of a statutory duty, under 

 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 60, s. 56, and will be liable in an action 

 for damage, notwithstanding that he has contracted with a 

 third party for supplying the necessary labour, and has not 

 personally interfered with the work {t). 



If in the execution of works authorized by Act of Par- 

 liament damage be sustained, and the Act provides a special 

 mode in which compensation for such damage may be 

 recovered, no action will lie for it. But this only relates 

 to works carefully and skilfully executed, and if there be 

 a want of proper skill on the part of those executing the 

 works an action for the negligence, to recover damages for 

 the injury thus sustained, will lie {ii). 



Where the negligence of both parties concurs in pro- 

 ducing the damage, so that both are to blame, neither party 



()•) Sadler v. Senloch, 24 L. J., 

 Q. B. 138 ; Bluke v. Thirst, 2 H. & 

 C. 20 ; Butler v. Hunter, 7 H. & N. 

 826. 



(s) Overton v. Freeman, 21 L. J., 

 C. P. 52; Gray v. PuUen, 32 L. J., 

 Q. B. 169 ; this latter case was re- 

 versed in the Exchequer Chamber, 

 34 L. J., Q. B. 265 ; but the rea- 

 soning on which the decision was 

 founded has been disapproved ; see 

 Wilson V. Merry, L. H., 1 H. L. 326, 

 341. 



{t) Taylor v. Grcephalgh, 24 W. 



E. 311— C. A. ; reversing L. E., 9 

 Q. B. 487; 43 L. J., Q. B. 168; 31 

 L. T., N. S. 184 ; 23 W. E. 4 ; see 

 also Pendlebury v. Greeiihalgh, 1 Q. 



B. D. 36; 45 L. J., Q. B. 3; 33 

 L. T., N. S. 372 ; 24 ^\. E. 98— 



C. A. In Kardenstle \. Bielby, 

 [1892] 1 Q. B. 709; 61 L. J.,M.C. 

 101, a conviction for causing an ob- 

 struction under similar circumstances 

 was quashed. 



(!() Clothier v. Webster, 31 L. J., 

 C. P. 316; Ohrby v. Ryde Commis- 

 sioners, 33 L. J., Q. B. 296. 



