## Facts

- The plaintiff owned a cart and horse on a public highway; his son (also his servant) and his infant daughter were riding in the cart.
- The defendant owned and drove a gig and horse on the same highway.
- The plaintiff alleged the defendant drove carelessly and negligently, causing the gig to strike the plaintiff’s cart with force.
- The collision destroyed the cart and threw the children from it, injuring them.
- The plaintiff claimed consequential losses, including loss of his son’s services and medical expenses.
- Evidence at trial indicated the plaintiff’s cart was stationary at the side of a twenty-four-foot-wide road and the defendant, while racing another gig, drove into it.
- The defendant argued his horse ran away and the collision was accidental.
- The jury, instructed to decide accident versus negligence, found the collision resulted from the defendant’s negligence and awarded damages to the plaintiff.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may sue in an action on the case for injuries caused by a defendant’s negligent driving when the injury results from a direct and immediate physical impact.
2. Whether the plaintiff is confined to trespass merely because the harm was immediate, absent a willful act.

## Decision

- The court sustained the plaintiff’s action on the case and refused to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant.
- The court held that case is available where the injury is caused by the defendant’s carelessness or negligence, even if the harmful impact is immediate.
- The plaintiff’s verdict and damages were allowed to stand.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may bring an action on the case for harm caused by a defendant’s negligence, even where the injury is direct and immediate.
- The availability of case in this setting turns on whether the defendant’s conduct was negligent rather than willful; willful direct invasions remain within trespass.
- In negligent “running-down” incidents, the distinction between trespass and case may be framed by intent versus negligence, not solely by direct versus consequential injury.

## Conclusion

The court held that negligence-based injuries from a direct collision may be pleaded in case, so long as the defendant’s conduct was not willful, and it therefore upheld the plaintiff’s jury verdict despite the defendant’s objection that trespass was the only proper form of action.


Williams v. Holland, 131 Eng. Rep. 848 (C.P. 1833)