Study manual

244 
[21] Tuff V. Warman. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 1857. 2 C.B., N.S. 
740. 
If the plaintiff's negligence could have been 
obviated by ordinary care on the defendant's 
part, then the defendant's negligence is the 
proximate cause of the damage. 
THIS was an action in which the defendant was charged with 
having so negligently navigated a steam-vessel in the river 
Thames as to run against and damage the barge of the plaintiff. 
The defendant pleaded, - first, not guilty, - secondly, that he 
had not the control or management of the steamer. 
The cause was tried before Willes, J. The defendant was in 
charge of a steam-vessel called the Celt, as pilot, coming up 
the river, some miles below Gravesend. The plaintiff's sailing-
barge was proceeding with a fair wind down the river, having two 
men on board, one of whom was at the helm. It did not appear 
where the other was; but it was clear that they kept no look-
out. For the man at the helm stated that, the sail being in his 
way, he could not see forward without stooping; and he admitted, 
that, although he saw the steamer coming when a considerable 
distance off, he did not look out again until she was within two 

---

245 
or three yards of him, and when it was too late to avoid the 
collision. The steamer, it appeared, was on her right side, 
according to the Admiralty regulations. The defendant stated 
that he was standing on the poop of the steamer, and saw the 
barge when about 300 yards distant, and immediately ported his 
helm; that, if the barge had done the same, the collision would 
have been avoided; that he thought the barge put her helm a-
starboard; and that, finding a collision inevitable, he put his 
helm hard a-port, and backed his engines, but too late. The 
defendant's evidence was corroborated by that of the captain and 
the mate of the steamer. On the other hand, two seamen, who 
were on board a yawl, and who saw the whole transaction, 
distinctly swore that the steamer's helm was not ported. 
On the part of the defendant, it was insisted that the plaintiff 
was not entitled to recover, inasmuch as he had failed to comply 
with the sailing regulations enforced by the statute 17 & 18 
Vict. c. 104, ss. 296, 297, 298; and that, assuming that the 
defendant had been guilty of negligence, still, if there was any 
negligence on the part of the plaintiff, be could not maintain 
the action. 
In leaving the case to the jury, the learned judge told them, 
that, if both parties were equally to blame, and the accident 
the result of their joint negligence, the plaintiff could not be 
entitled to recover; that, if the negligence or default of the 
plaintiff was in any degree the proximate cause of the damage, 

---

246 
he could not recover, however great may have been the negligence 
of the defendant; but that, if the negligence of the plaintiff 
was only remotely connected with the accident, than the question 
was whether the defendant might not by the exercise of ordinary 
care have avoided it; that, as the people on board the 
plaintiff's barge were keeping no look-out, the defendant should 
have gone to starboard, or reversed his engines, and so avoided 
the collision. He referred for an illustration to the case of 
Davies v. Mann
62
. And he concluded thus, - "Do you consider that 
the absence of a look-out was negligence on the part of the 
plaintiff? If so, you will consider whether it directly 
contributed to the accident. If you think that the plaintiff 
directly contributed to the accident, you will find for the 
defendant; but, if you think that the defendant by his 
negligence directly caused the injury, you must find for the 
plaintiff". 
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £106.