In uk.transport.london message
dia.com, Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:06:07, Richard J.
posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote on 11 February
2010 23:27:12 ...

One trusts that those who do so when the tide is particularly high are
familiar with the case of Rumpelhammer v Potts (APH 1930).

I have a vague recollection of that, one of A.P. Herbert's "Misleading
Cases", but couldn't find a reference. By coincidence, the relevant
case is mentioned in a letter in The Times today. It's actually
Rumpelheimer v. Haddock, which explains why I couldn't find the case
you cited!


It is consistently Rumpelhammer in my Penguin "Wigs at Work", 5/-, 1966.
Sorry for the Potts - an editing hangover from Fardell v Potts (APH),
which also refers to a Thames collision.

Does anyone recall the identity of a real case, perhaps from the later
19th century, concerning the equivalence of an escaping flood with an
escaping wild beast?

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
URL:http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm clpdmFAQ;
NOT URL:http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/: news:borland.* Guidelines