Williams v Eady 1893 (1 Viewer)

[munchiecrunchie]

does anyone know the facts for this case? I've tried numerous google and wiki searches and all i find the the same quote:

“ ... The schoolmaster was bound to take such care of his boys as a careful father would take of his boys, and there could not be a better definition of the duty of a schoolmaster.”

doesnt really help, coz i still have no idea wat the case is actually about.

if you know abt this case/know any links, that would be of help.

thanks =]

 

[jackmurray1989]

Check your university database.

Or if you're still in high school, check out AUSTLII. Or the Brittish version (or maybe AUSTLII international?) depending on where the case is.

 

[munchiecrunchie]

I tried all the AUSTLII databases - no luck.

but . . . I found it eventually on a google book preview.

 

[Frigid]

it was a Court of Appeal (Engl) case. I can't find the case itself, but it was cited in another case (Starr v Crone 1950 CarswellBC 96), as follows:

In Williams v Eady (1893) 10 TLR 41, the Court of Appeal for England considered a case against the headmaster of a boys' school. The headmaster had left some phosphorus in a cupboard, accessible to his pupils. One of the pupils, a boy of 17, took the phosphorus and mishandled it in such a way that the plaintiff, another student, was injured. Lord Esher MR said at p42:

'...as to the law on the subject there could be no doubt; and it was correctly laid down by the learned Judge, that the schoolmaster was bound to take such care of his boys as a careful father would take of his boys, and there could not be a better definition of the duty of a schoolmaster. Then he was bound to take notice of the ordinary nature of young boys, their tendency to do mischievous acts, and their propensity to meddle with anything that came in their way. Then, having phosphorus in his house, he was bound not to leave it in any place in which they might get at it, and so if he left it in the conservatory he did not use due care...'​

16 It is to be particularly noted that the boy who tampered with the phosphorus was 17 years old, but that the Court of Appeal found that the headmaster must still guard against his "tendency to do mischievous acts ... propensity to meddle with anything that came in his way." I accept this as a correct statement of the law. I think that when it has been proved that a defendant entrusted a dangerous weapon to a boy of 15, and that the boy has mishandled the weapon so as to cause damage, then there is a prima facie case of negligence for the defendant to meet.

 

[munchiecrunchie]

thanks soo much Frigid! that stuff is gold. =]