..., M.R, at pages 507, 508 and 509) and Thomas v. Quartermaine(3) (judgment of Bowen, L.J, at page 694). It will be noticed that all the three were civil actions in which damages were claimed on the.... The third case, that of Thomas v. Quartermaine was commented upon in Smith v. Baker. Furthermore, as I pointed out to the learned counsel during the hearing of this case, the decisions in England...this proposition reliance was placed on certain stray sentences occurring in the judgments in three English cases, Degg v. Midland Railway Co.(1), Heaven v. Pender(2) (judgment of Brett...

...principle that ordinarily there is no liability for negligence unless there is in the particular case a legal duty to take care. In Thomas v. Quartermaine(1), Lord Justice Bowen said..., those which come within the rule in Fletcher v. Rylands(2) and John Rylands v. Thomas Fletcher(3). Had the learned Subordinate Judge not found negligence on the part of the Company...in the present case, it would have been necessary for us to discuss this rule at length, as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher has been applied in cases of chemicals, fire and electricity...

...knowing the risk he clearly brought himself within the principle ‘volenti non fit injuria’; see also Thomas v. Quartermaine(7). I see no importance in the fact that the second defendant company might...the actual pecuniary benefit which the beneficiaries might reasonably have expected to enjoy, had the man not been killed. This principle has been stated in the cases of Royal Trust Co. v.... Canadian Pacific Railway Co.(1) and Rollings v. Thompson(2). Assuming, therefore, that I find the defendants or either of them liable, the matter of assessing any compensation is one which I...

..., L.J., in Thomas v. Quartermaine, (1887) 18 QBD 685 at p. 696 said : "The maxim, be it observed, is not 'scienti non fit...beneficiary and also principal and agent. The rule of common law was expanded by engrafting fictions in order to prevent the rigour of the law. The leading case on the subject is Tweddle v.... Atkinson, (1861) I.B. and Section 393, settling the rule that the third person cannot sue on a contract made by the contracting parties for his benefit and confirmed the rule in In Price v. Esston...