Nevertheless, while traversing the mile south from Peterborough towards Norman Cross, the wagon's front axle cracked along a third of its length and gave way, overturning the vehicle.
As was customary upon the occurrence of such accidents,[7] Priestley was taken to the closest public lodging, in this case the King's Head Inn from which he and Beeton had recently departed.
During the Lincoln Summer Assizes of 1836, Charles Priestley (as a minor through his father) sued his master Fowler for compensation relating to his accident.
No allegation was made as to negligent actions or omissions, nor of the existence or violation of a duty towards Charles Priestley by anyone in Fowler's employ.
[17] Throughout the trial, Serjeant Goulbourne emphasised the over-loading claim, with contrary evidence presented by the parties as to the weight both properly and actually borne by the wagon.
In putting Priestley's case to the jury, Goulbourne played to their sympathies, remonstrating the unprincipled behaviour of the "wealthy butcher" defendant towards the plaintiff who "was one of a large family," and asking for not only reimbursement of medical expenses, but also recompense for Priestley's pain and suffering:That a very opulent tradesman, a man in a very large way of business like the defendant, should have driven this poor lad into court, for he would say that not only justice, but also in common humanity, he ought to pay the pecuniary damages his client had sustained, and also some remuneration for the suffering he had undergone, and the deprivation under which he was now labouring and would labour for the rest of his days.
Nor could Fowler be held liable, Adams continued, as he was only bound to use "such ordinary care and diligence as he would use over himself," and the defendant had been satisfied as to the state of his property.
Without identifying a related judgment, Park, J. disagreed with Adams's contention "that there is no such case on the books," and refused to nonsuit the plaintiff, opining that "the defendant is liable.
[25] During the following Michaelmas Term of 1836, Serjeant Adams obtained a rule to arrest the judgment on the ground "that there was nothing in the declaration to throw any liability on the master.
[29] Showing cause, Serjeant Goulbourne began by conceding that a probable issue [30] was whether Priestley had been required to ride in the van, or had been at liberty to walk alongside it.
[31] Next, after acknowledging that the suit was "a case of the first impression" without "precedent exactly in point," [32] Goulbourne declared that the action was "maintainable on general principles of law," [33] analogising Priestley's situation to that of "an ordinary coach passenger.
In response, the Chief Baron opined that liability would exist in those circumstances if either the master had "maliciously designed" to injure his servant, or he had "positively guaranteed" his safety.
Serjeant Goulbourne replied that the present case differed because "it is not a mere state of insufficiency; for the overloading of the cart is a positive act, which occasions the accident.
"[40] At no point during the repartee did either Serjeant Goulbourne or the Exchequer Barons touch on the likelihood of Priestley's injury originating from the oversight of a fellow servant.
[42] The action having raised three of Adams's prerequisites to liability, the Barons of the Exchequer engaged defendant's counsel in a protracted discussion of whether Priestley was required to ride in the wagon or could have walked alongside it, then intended that the declaration was sufficient on this point.
"[44] As with the arguments presented by his opposing counsel, Adams never raised the prospect of vitiating his client's liability due to the intervening act of a fellow servant.
[47] The Chief Baron began by dismissing as a matter of law the assertion that Fowler's knowledge of overloading could be intended after verdict.
[51] Even more distressing to Lord Abinger was that the rationale of the case could be broadened further, allowing, for example, a master to "be liable to the servant, for the negligence of the chambermaid, in putting him into a damp bed.
to the best of his judgment, information, and belief," the Chief Baron emphasised that it could "never" imply an obligation for the master "to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself."