Case
Commentary
Hobbs and Wife v The London and South Western Railway Company
(1874-75) LR10 QB 111: A critique
INTRODUCTION
Hobbs v London & South-Western Railway is a leading case law under Inconvenience caused by the breach of contract. This is a case based on measures of damages. A claim from damages arises out of breach of contract whether for general or liquidated damages. The primary aim of the law of damages is to place the plaintiff in the same position as he would have occupied if the breach of contract did not occur. It works on the principle of Compensating the Claimant (Plaintiff) and not punishing the payer (Defendant).
FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiff Samuel Hobbs with his wife Elizabeth, and two children of five and seven years old respectively, took tickets on the South Western railway from Wimbledon to Hampton Court, by the midnight train. The train of South-Western railway pulled its passengers inthe wrong direction because of which the plaintiff with his family got into the train but it did not go to Hampton Court but went along the other branch to Esher, far distant from Hampton Court Station,where the party were compelled to get out. It is so late at night the plaintiff was unable to get a conveyance or accommodation at an inn and consequently the plaintiff and his wife, finding no other conveyance, nor a place to stay had to walk home at midnight so the party walked to the plaintiff’s house, a distance of between four and five miles, where they arrived at about three in the morning. It was a drizzling night, and the wife caught cold, suffered great exposure, inconvenience and fatigue due to which shewas laid up for some time, being unable to assist her husband in his business as before, was unable to look after domestic affairs and her children and moreover, expenses were incurred for medical illness.
ISSUE RAISED
1) Whether the inconvenience caused is
due to a breach of contract?
2) Southwestern railway is liable to what
extent for damages?
3) What all expenses will be covered
under damages?
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
# Plaintiff’s contentions
The petitioner Samuel Hobbs and his wife claimed damages for the inconvenience that was caused due to a breach of contract by South Western railway The contract was to supply a conveyance to Hampton Court, and it was not supplied. Where there is a contract to supply a thing and it is not supplied, the damages are the difference between that which ought to have been supplied and that which you have to pay for, if it is equally good. The plaintiff with his family took a second-class ticket and became passengers in one of the defendant’s carriages to be by them carried from Wimbledon to by a train which defendants represented Hampton Court, and it thereupon became the to carry her thither, but they carried her in anotherto Esher station, far distant from Hampton Court there left her, whereby the plaintiff’s wife Elizabeth catching a cold and reaching home after walking four to five miles. The Claim by the plaintiff for this was £300.
Secondly, Samuel lost and was deprived of the comfort and services of his wife, and was put to great expense in nursing and medical attendance on his wife due to reason of train carrying them to the wrong place. The Claim by the plaintiff for this was £100.
# Defendant’s contentions
The defendants claimed that although the compensation can be paid for the inconvenience caused due to the train being pulled inthe wrong direction, they denied the fact that compensation for Elizabeth’s illness that is plaintiff’s wife must be paid. They claimed that when the plaintiff was at Esher if he had been able to hire n fly or obtain a carriage and paid money for it, it was admitted he could recover that money, —yet in as much as he could get no carriage, and was compelled to walk under penalty of staying where he was all night, was not entitled to get anything. Defendant claims to be at a Loss and finds no reason for the compensation for illness and claims it should not be compensated by damages in such an action as this. It has been endeavouredto be argued Upon the principle and upon authority, that this was a kind of damage which could not be supported; and attempts were also made to satisfythat this supposed inconvenience is more or less imaginary, and would depend upon the strength and constitution of parties, and various other circumstances; and that it is not to be taken that a walk of several miles,so far from being a matter of inconvenience, would be just the contrary. All that depends on the actual facts of each individual case and therefore the company cannot be held liable for situations and problems which cannot be foreseen.
JUDGEMENT
#PROCEEDING DECISION OF THE COURT
At the trial, before Kelly, CB, at the Kingston spring assizes, 1874, it appeared in evidence plaintiff lifted Hampton. On the 12th of August, he took tickets for himself, his wife, and two children of five and seven years old respectively, at the Wimbledon station on the defendants’ railway to Hampton Court station, by the midnight train. They took their places onthe train, but it that the train went to the other branchwhere the plaintiff with his family were therefore obliged to get out at Esher station, it was between four and five miles. the plaintiff house, and further from it than the Hampton station by two or three miles. The plaintiff was unable to get a conveyance or accommodation at an inn, where he knocked in vain. The party were, therefore, obliged to walk home, where they arrived at about three in the morning.
In answer to questions by the Chief Baron, the jury found £8 as damages for the inconvenience suffered by the plaintiffs in being obliged to walk home; and £20 in respect of the wife’s illness beyond £2 paid in the court.
In its consequences; a verdict accordingly passed for the plaintiffs for £28. Beyond the
£2 paid into court, leave being reserved to move to reduce the verdict by the £8 And £20, or either if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to both or either of those sums.
On Jan. 15. Parry Serjt and C.W Wood, of the rule said that if the plaintiff had a conveyance, he would have been entitled to claim the cost from the defendant; but the £2 paid into court is ample to cover that. Discomfort or inconvenience cannot be measured by pecuniary damages, and the plaintiffs arehence not entitled to the compensation In actions for breach of contract, the damages must be such as are capable of being appreciated.The plaintiff is entitled to pecuniary damages and such other damages as he really sustained as a direct consequence of the breach of contract. Each case of this description must be decided with reference to the circumstances peculiar to it.
COCKBURN, O.J. said that we are of opinion that this rule should be made absolute as regards the £20. Damages are given in respect to the consequences of the wife having caught cold in this situation but walking from Esher to Hampton, the plaintiff should be discharged regardingthe £8. With respect to the personal inconvenience husband and the wife are in consequence of their not being taken to the proper place or destination.
Arising from a particular breach of contract or the particular cause is always to be recoverable as a measure of damages, which would be to lay down a very dangerous rule. My Lord and my brother Blackburn have said that we cannot lay down rules as applicable to all the cases.
This case comes to the same conclusion as Lord and my brother Blackburn, that the rule must be made absolute to reduce the damages to £8. Beyond the £2 paid in the court
#FINAL
DECISION OF THE COURT
On appeal. the court of Queen's Bench held that the £8 was properly awarded but not £20.Inthe case was that the damages were reduced to £8 with £2 paid in court. The damages for the wife’s illness were not compensated. It was quoted that anything in the form of a rule, that in case of breach of contract, the party breaking contract must be held liable for the proximate and probable consequences of such breaches, such as might to have been given fair compensation to one the breached parties that entered into the contract.Therefore, as to the first head of damage inconvenience of walking to Hampton, there can be no doubt that in such an inconvenience theparties’ compensation would arise from the breach of the contract as aid as it is an inconvenience that can be estimated in a pecuniary way.’ It is admitted, that if there had been means of conveyance and the plaintiffs had availed themselves of those means of conveyance, they would have been entitled to a measure of the damagesfor those expenses as there is no difficulty in applying to the inconvenience which has been suffered a pecuniary way. Hence, in this case, damages can only be given for breach of contract but not for the physical inconvenience that is Elizabeth’s illness.
CONCLUSION
The jurisprudence has been complicated by the ad hoc recognition of exceptional categories of cases to which the general rule will not apply. The general rule of no damages has been upheld in respect of claims arising from harsh and humiliating dismissals. Claims for damages for distress, inconvenience, disappointment etc. (described by the judge as 'intangible harm') are fundamentally subjective but they were not considered in the case of Hobbs and Wife v The London and South Western Railway Company. In this case, the inconvenience of walking back must be taken to have been within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. But the wife’s cold was not the necessary or even the probable consequence of the breach and hence damage wasn’t awarded.
But in the subsequent case of McMahon vs Fields,’ the above decision was criticized and damages were allowed when the plaintiff’s horses were turned out of the defendant’s stable in the breach of contract and they caught a cold before an alternative accommodation could be found for them.
Authored by:
Khushi Garg
0 Comments