Baker v. Bolton

A stage-coach overturned on the way from Portsmouth to London. The passenger's wife died about a month later. The ruling limited what the husband could recover for her death.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: BAILII

Parties

Baker — plaintiff. He and his late wife were passengers on the coach. He was a publican.

Bolton and others — defendants. They were the proprietors of the stage-coach.

The judge was Lord Ellenborough (not a party).

Procedural History

1. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants as proprietors of a stage-coach.
2. The plaintiff's declaration (the written statement of his claim) listed special damage and the loss of his wife's comfort, fellowship and assistance.
3. Lord Ellenborough told the jury what it could take into account.
4. The verdict was for the plaintiff, with £100 damages.
5. The report records no earlier or later court decision.
6. The report is cited as (1808) 1 Camp 493; 170 ER 1033. The date given is 08 December 1808.

Facts

1. The defendants were proprietors of a stage-coach.
2. The plaintiff and his late wife were travelling on top of the coach from Portsmouth to London.
3. The coach overturned.
4. The plaintiff was much bruised.
5. His wife was so severely hurt that she died about a month later in a hospital.
6. The declaration claimed special damage besides other heads.
7. It also stated that "by means of the premises, the plaintiff had wholly lost, and been deprived of the comfort, fellowship, and assistance of his said wife". It added that he had since suffered great grief, vexation and anguish of mind.
8. The plaintiff was much attached to his deceased wife.
9. He was a publican, and she had been of great use to him in running his business.

Issues Raised

The report does not frame issues. The points the ruling decides are these:

1. What could the jury take into account when awarding damages to the plaintiff for his own injuries and for his wife's injury and death?
2. Could the death of a human being be complained of as an injury in a civil Court?
3. Up to what time could the damages in respect of the wife extend?

Arguments Contended

The report records no arguments of either side. It names only counsel.

For the plaintiff

• Arguments not recorded in the report. Park and Marryat appeared for the plaintiff.
• The declaration shows what the plaintiff claimed: the loss of his wife's comfort, fellowship and assistance, and his grief and anguish of mind.
• The evidence noted in the report was that he was much attached to her and that she was of great use in his business.

For the defendants

• Arguments not recorded in the report. The Attorney-General appeared for the defendant.

Court's Reasoning

The report has no numbered paragraphs and gives one short ruling by Lord Ellenborough.

Lord Ellenborough

1. Noted: The jury could take into consideration only three things. They were the bruises the plaintiff himself had sustained, the loss of his wife's society, and the distress of mind he suffered on her account. These counted only from the time of the accident until the moment of her dissolution (her death).
2. Held: "In a civil Court, the death of a human being could not be complained of as an injury".
3. Held: In this case the damages, as to the plaintiff's wife, must stop with the period of her existence.

Authorities

• The report cites no case, statute or article. Lord Ellenborough gave no authority for the ruling.
• Also cited in footnotes: none. The report's Note 1 asks only whether a wife killed on the spot would be a case of damnum absque injuria (loss without a legal wrong). It gives no answer.

Judgement

1. The jury could consider only the plaintiff's own bruises, the loss of his wife's society and his distress of mind, from the accident until her death.
2. Damages as to the wife stopped with the period of her existence.
3. Verdict for the plaintiff, with £100 damages.
4. No costs order is recorded in the report.

Legal Principle / Ratio

A civil Court could not treat a human being's death as an injury to be complained of. The husband's damages for the loss of his wife's society and his distress ran only until her death. The key holding: "In a civil Court, the death of a human being could not be complained of as an injury".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The ruling gives no reason and cites no authority. The report records no argument on either side.
• The judgment does not say whether the ruling was meant to apply beyond the facts of the case. It states the rule in general words.
• Note 1 to the report raises the case of a wife killed on the spot and asks whether it is damnum absque injuria. The report leaves that question unanswered.
• The report notes the wife's help in the plaintiff's business. The ruling does not mention it.

Significance

• The case is the source of a rule in the law of tort (a civil wrong). Death of a human being is not, in a civil Court, an injury that can be complained of.
• The notes page on Death in Relation to Tort covers the rule and its later history. This case page draws only on the report.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: the death of a human being could not be complained of as an injury in a civil Court. The trap: do not say the report discusses any statute or earlier case.
• Recoverable by the husband: his own bruises, loss of his wife's society and his distress of mind. The trap: these counted only until her death.
• Facts to remember: the journey was from Portsmouth to London. The wife died about a month later in a hospital.
• Result: verdict for the plaintiff with £100 damages.
• Citation: (1808) 1 Camp 493; 170 ER 1033.

Prepared from the full text of the report. The report has no numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph numbers are cited.