Global InformationRead v Great Eastern Railway information
| Read v Great Eastern Railway | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) |
| Full case name | Read v The Great Eastern Railway Company |
| Decided | 25 June 1868 |
| Citations |
|
| Cases cited |
|
| Legislation cited | Fatal Accidents Act 1846 1 2 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Blackburn J Lush J |
| Keywords | |
| |
Read v Great Eastern Railway (1868) LR 3 QB 555[5] was an English tort law case which created a strong authority[6] enshrining the principle that if a deceased person has settled a damages claim discharging all the claims and causes of action against the defendant in full satisfaction within their lifetime,[7][4] no further action can be brought by their representatives if the injured person subsequently dies from the same injuries.[8][9] It was held that a claim for loss of dependency under section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, also known as "Lord Campbell's Act",[10] could not be brought if a person died from the effects of an injury for which they had settled a claim during their lifetime, as they would not be capable of any fresh cause of action.[11]
- ^ McBride, Nicholas J.; Bagshaw, Roderick (17 May 2018). Tort Law. United Kingdom: Pearson UK. p. 633. ISBN 978-1-292-20785-8.
Read v The Great Eastern Railway Company (1868) LR 3 QB 555
- ^ DLS (4 December 2021). "Read v Great Eastern Railway Company: QBD 25 Jun 1868". swarb.co.uk. Retrieved 6 May 2023.
Blackburn J said: "Before that statute, the person who received a personal injury and survived its consequences, could bring an action and recover damages for the injury; but if he died from its effects, then no action could be brought."
- ^ Darling, CR (July 1889). "Statutory Liability for Causing Death". American Law Register: 387–388 – via The University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.
...and notwithstanding the language of the court in Blake v. Midland Railway Company (1852), 18 Q. B. 93, to the effect that the Act does not transfer the decedent's right of action to his representative, but gives a totally new right of action; the Court of Queen's Bench (in which also the latter case arose), held in Read v. Great Eastern R'y Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 555, that a settlement made by the decedent in his lifetime, with the company responsible for the injury, was a bar to an action under the statute, after his death.
- ^ a b Ontario. Court of Appeal; Tupper, J. Stewart (James Stewart); Cassels, R. S. (Richard Scougall); Robinson, Christopher; Smith, James Frederick; Law Society of Upper Canada (1885). Reports of cases decided in the Court of appeal. Osgoode Hall Law School Library. Toronto: Rowsell & Hutchison. pp. 21–22.
In Read v. Great Eastern R. W. Co., L. R 3 Q. B. 555 41 86 8) an action by a widow to recover damages for the death of her husband, it was held that the action was answered by a plea of satisfaction to the deceased in his life-time...
- ^ Knight, Michael (1966). "Some Aspects of Damages Under The Civil Liability Acts, 1961 and 1964". Irish Jurist (1966-). 1 (1): 35–58. ISSN 0021-1273. JSTOR 44025929 – via JSTOR.
...the dependants had no right of action if the deceased accepted compensation in full settlement for the negligence prior to his death from the injuries in the accident (...) Read v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 555
- ^ Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1978] UKHL 4, 2 November 1978, retrieved 8 May 2023,
Although the point has never been considered by your Lordships' House, it is generally assumed that should the plaintiff accept a sum in settlement of his claim or obtain judgment for damages in respect of the defendant's negligence, his dependants will have no cause of action under the Fatal Accidents Acts after his death. This assumption is supported by strong authority; see Read v. Great Eastern Railway Company (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 555.
- ^ Mews, John; Chapman, C. M.; Sparham, Harry H. W.; Todd, A. H. (1884). A Digest of the Reported Decisions of the Courts of Common Law, Bankruptcy, Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce, together with a selection from those of the Court of Chancery and Irish Courts: From 1756 to 1883 inclusive. Vol. 5 (Foundeton Fisher's Digest. ed.). Stevens and Sons. p. 745.
Declaration by a widow against a railway company for negligence, whereby her husband, a passenger, was injured, and in consequence died. Plea, that in his lifetime the company paid him and he accepted a sum of money in satisfaction and discharge of all claims and causes of action which he had against them...
- ^ Albert., Parsons (1893). The liability of railway companies for negligence towards passengers (PDF). H. Cox. p. 144. OCLC 60723579 – via Wikimedia Commons.
If an injured person receives compensation during his lifetime, in full satisfaction of all his claims, and subsequently dies from the effect of his injuries, his representatives cannot then claim damages in respect of his death; for the death gives no fresh rights of action (a). Read v. Great Eastern Railway Company, L.R., 3 Q. B. 555; 9 B. & S. 714; 18 L. T., N. S. 82; 37 L. R., Q. B. 278; 16 W. R. 1040.
- ^ "Reports of the Supreme Court of Canada" (PDF). publications.gc.ca. Toronto, Canada: Canada Law Book Company, Ltd. 1914. pp. 472, 586. Retrieved 6 May 2023 – via Government of Canada Publications.
If the deceased has settled his claim in his lifetime, no further action can be brought on his dying through the same injuries. Read v. Great Eastern Railway Co.
- ^ The Albany Law Journal: A Monthly Record of the Law and the Lawyers. Weed, Parsons. 1883. p. 43. LCCN 19018339.
Against this there was the unquestioned authority of Read v. Great Eastern Railway Company, L. R. 3 Q. B. 555, in which case it was held that an action can only be maintained under Lord Campbell's Act in a case where the deceased could have maintained an action if he had survived.
- ^ Swarbrick, David (2014). "Wills and Probate - From: 1849 To: 1899". swarb.co.uk. Retrieved 6 May 2023.