History
Sheffield Flood
«ReturnInundation Commission reaches a Conclusion
7th December, 1864
A very important argument upon the cases in which the claimants sue for "consequential" damage, as a consequence of the inundation, was brought to a conclusion yesterday. The commissioners are Mr. W. Overend, Q.C. (chief), Mr. J. Jobson Smith (manufacturer), and Mr. M.F.Mills (estate agent). The cases on behalf of claimants were argued by Mr. Manisty, Q.C., Mr. Waller (of the chancery bar), and Mr. Forbes; while the Water Company were represented by Mr. Mellish, Q.C., and Mr. Quain.
The arguments were of a very intricate character, but they took a range as wide as the clause in the Company's Act which fixes their liability. That clause appeared in the Company's Act of 1845, and it was repeated, in an enlarged form, in the Inundation Act which was obtained last Session.
The clause enacts that "the company shall, and they are hereby required, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, to pay and make good to owners, lessees, etc., of property, and to every person whomsoever, all costs, charges, loss, or damage, as well immediate as consequential, which they shall suffer by reason of giving way of the company's works."
Another section dispenses with the necessity of proving negligence in order to support any claim, both in respect of loss of life and in claims for loss of property and bodily injury.
There are a vast number of claims sent in which the question of consequential damage is raised; but the specific question discussed during the special sitting has arisen upon the following interesting case:-
A grocer named Woodcock claimed for loss of his custom caused by the drowning of a number of his customers, and the destruction of the houses of others, which had caused them to remove to other parts of the town, thereby causing him to lose their custom.
Mr. Manisty and Mr. Waller argued that the section quoted above established a statutory contract between the water company and the public, by which, on condition that they were allowed to impound vast and dangerous bodies of water, thereby creating what would otherwise be a great nuisance, that they would undertake to compensate the public for all and every kind of damage, “as well immediate as consequential," as should be caused by the giving way of the company's reservoirs. In this case the claimant had a thriving business. He went to bed on the night of the 11th of March, with a business which would have commanded a handsome sum for "goodwill," and he awoke in the morning a ruined man. All his customers were swept away, and it was argued that as this damage was such as would be the natural way, nay, the inevitable consequence of an inundation, it must have been within the contemplation of the legislature when they framed the Act, and was therefore recoverable as "consequential" damage. On the other hand Mr. Mellish and Mr. Quain argued that no person could establish a claim whose legal rights had not been injured. The section gave no rights ultra those which were recoverable at common law. Woodcock had no legal right to have his customers there; all that he had a right to have was that those customers should have free access to his shop. It was argued if the grocer could recover for the loss of his customers, there was nothing to stop a claim from the wholesale grocer who supplied the retailer, the importer who supplied the wholesale dealer, the shipowner, who would have less sugar to carry, and, finally, the sugar grower in the West Indies, who would have less demand for his sugar.
The argument was very closely reasoned out on both sides; and some amusing illustrations of the variety of the claims were given. A rat catcher had actually sent in a claim for consequential damage, "because the flood had drowned all the rats in the district that he was accustomed to operate in."
A surgeon sent in a claim for damage caused by the removal (in consequence of the flood) of many ladies, whom he would otherwise have had to attend at their confinements.
Other claims, equally whimsical, were mentioned. At the close of the arguments, the Court adjourned until the 29th inst., when an important judgement will be given. It may be stated that in consequence of the delay that has taken place the Water Company have, as a matter of precaution, given notice foe an Act to extend the time for the holding of the commission.
Up to the present time nearly 3,500 of the claims have been settled out of a total of 7,000. Continued »
