Coggs v Bernard
Encyclopedia
Coggs v Bernard 2 Ld Raym 909 (also Coggs v Barnard) is a landmark case both for English property law
and contract law
, decided by Sir John Holt, Chief Justice of the King's Bench
. It sets out the duties owed by a bailee - someone in possession of property owned by another.
belonging to John Coggs from Brooks Market, Holborn
to Water Street
, just south of the Strand
(about half a mile). Bernard's undertaking was gratuitous; he was not offered compensation for his work. As the brandy was being unloaded at the Water Street cellar, a barrel was staved and 150 gallons were lost.
Coggs brought an action on the case against Bernard, alleging he had undertaken to carry the barrels but had spilled them through his negligence.
. Instead, his responsibility rested on the trust that Coggs placed in him to use due care in transporting the casks, and by his tacit acceptance of that trust by taking the casks into his custody. Thus, because Bernard acted negligently when he was under a responsibility to use care, he was held to be in breach of a trust.
In the course of his judgment, Holt gave this well-known statement of the categories of bailment:
The case overturned the then leading case in the law of bailments, Southcote's Case (1601), which held that a general bailee was strictly liable
for any damage or loss to the goods in his possession (e.g., even if the goods were stolen from him by force). Under the ruling in Coggs v Bernard, a general bailee was only liable if he had been negligent. Despite his reappraisal of the standard of liability for general bailees, Holt CJ refused to reconsider the long-standing common law rule that held common carriers strictly liable for any loss or damage to bailed property in their possession. Although admitting that the rule was "hard," Holt CJ justified it by stating:
Sir John Powell concurred. He began his decision by saying, echoing Sir Edward Coke's famous dictum, "Let us consider the reason of the case. For nothing is law that is not reason."
English property law
English property law refers to the law of acquisition, sharing and protection of wealth in England and Wales. Property law can refer to many things, and covers many areas. Property in land is the domain of the law of real property. The law of personal property is particularly important for...
and contract law
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
, decided by Sir John Holt, Chief Justice of the King's Bench
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is the head of the judiciary and President of the Courts of England and Wales. Historically, he was the second-highest judge of the Courts of England and Wales, after the Lord Chancellor, but that changed as a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005,...
. It sets out the duties owed by a bailee - someone in possession of property owned by another.
Facts
William Bernard undertook to carry several barrels of brandyBrandy
Brandy is a spirit produced by distilling wine. Brandy generally contains 35%–60% alcohol by volume and is typically taken as an after-dinner drink...
belonging to John Coggs from Brooks Market, Holborn
Holborn
Holborn is an area of Central London. Holborn is also the name of the area's principal east-west street, running as High Holborn from St Giles's High Street to Gray's Inn Road and then on to Holborn Viaduct...
to Water Street
Water Street
-Canada:*Water Street, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada*Water Street, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada*Water Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada-United States:*Water Street, Boston, Massachusetts*Water Street, Eau Claire, Wisconsin...
, just south of the Strand
Strand, London
Strand is a street in the City of Westminster, London, England. The street is just over three-quarters of a mile long. It currently starts at Trafalgar Square and runs east to join Fleet Street at Temple Bar, which marks the boundary of the City of London at this point, though its historical length...
(about half a mile). Bernard's undertaking was gratuitous; he was not offered compensation for his work. As the brandy was being unloaded at the Water Street cellar, a barrel was staved and 150 gallons were lost.
Coggs brought an action on the case against Bernard, alleging he had undertaken to carry the barrels but had spilled them through his negligence.
Judgment
Holt CJ at the London Guildhall found that Mr Bernard, the defendant, was negligent in carrying the casks and was therefore liable as a bailee. Holt made clear that Bernard's responsibility to Coggs was not formally contractual in nature, since he received no considerationConsideration
Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable. Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise. It can take a number of forms: money, property, a promise, the doing of an act, or even refraining from...
. Instead, his responsibility rested on the trust that Coggs placed in him to use due care in transporting the casks, and by his tacit acceptance of that trust by taking the casks into his custody. Thus, because Bernard acted negligently when he was under a responsibility to use care, he was held to be in breach of a trust.
In the course of his judgment, Holt gave this well-known statement of the categories of bailment:
The case overturned the then leading case in the law of bailments, Southcote's Case (1601), which held that a general bailee was strictly liable
Strict liability
In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability...
for any damage or loss to the goods in his possession (e.g., even if the goods were stolen from him by force). Under the ruling in Coggs v Bernard, a general bailee was only liable if he had been negligent. Despite his reappraisal of the standard of liability for general bailees, Holt CJ refused to reconsider the long-standing common law rule that held common carriers strictly liable for any loss or damage to bailed property in their possession. Although admitting that the rule was "hard," Holt CJ justified it by stating:
This [rule] is a politik establishment, contrived by the policy of the law, for the safety of all persons, the necessity of whose affairs oblige them to trust these sorts of persons [i.e. carriers], that they may be safe in their ways of dealing: for else these carriers might have an opportunity of undoing all persons that had any dealings with them, by combining with thieves etc; and yet doing it in such a clandestine manner, as would not be possible to be discovered. And this is the reason the law is founded upon that point.
Sir John Powell concurred. He began his decision by saying, echoing Sir Edward Coke's famous dictum, "Let us consider the reason of the case. For nothing is law that is not reason."
See also
- Ball v Coggs (1710) 1 Brown PC 140, 1 ER 471 and Ball v Lord Lanesborough (1713) 5 Brown PC 480, 2 ER 809, show that Mr Coggs was made bankrupt (Stat 8 Anne c 28 (1709)) after litigation from a former manager of a brass wire works, of which Coggs had been partner and treasurer. He had to pay £5000.
- Lane v Cotton (1701) Salk 18 per Holt C.J.: “It is a hard thing to charge a carrier [with strict liability]: but if he should not be charged, he might keep a correspondence with thieves, and cheat the owner of his goods, and he should never be able to prove it”. The law presumes against the common carrier (i.e. imposes strict liability) “to prevent litigation, collusion, and the necessity of going into circumstances impossible to be unravelled”.
- Forward v Pittard (1785) 1 Term Rep. 27 at 33 per Lord Mansfield.
- Riley v Horne (1828) 5 Bing. 217, 220 per Best C.J.
- Somes v British Empire Shipping Co (1860) 8 H.L.C. 338
- The Katingaki [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep 372
- The Winson [1981] 3 All E.R. 688 at 689
- Nugent v Smith (1876) 101, Cockburn CJ, strict liability of the common carrier said to be a, “principle of extreme rigour, peculiar to our own law, and the absence of which in the law of other nations has not been found by experience to lead to the evils for the prevention of which the rule of our law was supposed to be necessary.”