Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co [1861-73] All ER Rep 246

What's the case about?
The plaintiff (claimant) was employed at St Katharine Docks.  As he walked from one part of the docks to another, he was hit by six bags of sugar that fell from a crane above him.  He was injured and sued the dock company on the basis that their negligence had caused his injuries.

Where is it on the map?
At point P.

Who won?
The plaintiff.  The defendant was found to have caused the plaintiff's injuries, even though it could not be established exactly how the bags of sugar had come to fall upon him.

What's the principle?
This case is an authority for the concept of res ipsa locquitur, which can be translated as 'the thing speaks for itself'.
 
In a claim of negligence a claimant needs to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the defendant has caused his loss.  The usual test can be found in Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. 428

The concept of res ipsa locquitiur can be used to help a claimant who might struggle to prove exactly how the defendant caused their loss.  There will be a presumption of negligence if the thing (in this case the crane) was under the control of the defendant and the accident would not usually happen unless there was some negligence on the part of the defendant.

What's it like today?
St Katharine's Docks are still operational, and are home to yachts, barges, and some very nice bars and restaurants.  The building with the clock tower is called Ivory House and was built in 1852.  So it would still have been fairly new at the time of the plaintiff's accident, which was in January 1864.

The docks are in an ideal location, maybe 50 meters from Tower Bridge:

Thanks to the tall guy who helped me to take a picture of this bollard, which is embossed 'St Katharine by the Tower':

What's with the spelling?
The docks are quite clearly called 'St Katharine's'.  But every citation I have seen calls it 'St Katherine's'.  I am satisfied that it is the same place.  But I don't think it's fair to get into an argument with Victorian court reporters over spellings, so I have kept the title as per the citations...