The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-02-18 00:00:00

EADES v. the LONDON, BRIGHTON, and

SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.

The above action has been broimht in the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, London, by Miss Sarah Eades' the aughter of •
retired farmer residing at • place called (iatherle)-lodge,
near Richmond, In Yorkshire, to recover compensation for
Injuries sustained by her in consequence of the alleged neg-
ligence of the defendants' servants lu admitting so large a
Crowd on the departure platform of the Epsom Downs Sta-
tion on the last Derby.day that they had no control over
them, and by reason of their defective arrangements there
was • rush at the carriages to obtain seats, and the plaintiff
and a Mr. Dodds, • yeoman farmer, who was with her, were
pitched over the buffers between two carriages and run over
by the empty carriages, then moving into the station.
The plaintifrs case was that she was staying with a
married sister in London and Mr. Dodds, a farmer
from the county of Durham, and the brother of the
member for Stockton, who was paying his addresses to
her, aud was in London at the time, had arranged to
take her to see the Derby at Epsom. They took brat-
class return tickets at the Victoria station of the de-
fendants' company, and after seeing the races, left
before the last race, and proceeded to the Epsom
Downs Station, where they arrived between four and
five o'clock. They were admitted through the usual
barrier at the outside on showing their tickets, and
passed through the station without obstruction on to
' the Victoria platform. At that time a train of
full carriages was about to depart, and there
were no other carriages up at the platform. After
waiting ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, a train
of empty carriages was slowly backed into the sta-
tion, the doors being open. There was but one first-
class carriage, the other carriages being third and
second class, and at that time the crowd in the plat.
form had gradually increased until it was densely
crowded, and, according to several witneeses, among
them aptain Torten, of Whitby, Mr. Dodds, and
others, from 1,000 to 1,500 people were on the Vat.
form. As the carriages backed into the station the
crowd made a rush to get at the only first.chuse car-
riage. The plaintiff was alarmed, and wanted to get
out of the crowd and wait, but could not, and she and
Mr. Dodds were pushed by the crowd violently against
the aide of one of the carriages, and, OA the train ad.
vanced, were pitched over the buffers at the end of the
carriage between that and the following carriage, and
rolled over and over between the rails by the ad.
vancing carriage*, and eventually puled over one of
the rails and under the platform, the wheel of one
of the carriages going over the plainttfrs arm and over
Mr. Dodd's foot. The plaintiff was very rerlowsly
injured, her arm being badly wounded, and one of the
veins burst. She was in consequence laid up for MIMI
three months under medical attention, and has since
partially lost the tile of her arm. The nervous shock
had also caused injury to her eyes, and she cannot now
pe to read witbout e lettere getting cealused

dim. -Sheailmed damages for the injuties she had
received, and for the costoto which she had been put
In medical and other attendance. It was contended
that there are well known means by which the crowd
could have been controlled which had not been re-
sorted to, and that there were not above four porters
to be seen altogether to manage the people on the plat-
form, which war crowded by three times as many
persons as could be carried by the train.

•
At the close of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Lopes sub-
mitted that there was no IWO to go to the jury, and
that the plaintiff must be nonsuited.
Mr. Foster contended that the duty cast on the de-
fendants as carriers of passeengrn was, in the words of
Lord Mansfield "as far as human care and foresight
could go to, provide for their eate conveyance." The
going on the platform of the Epsom Downs Station
was a necessary part of their conveyance, and this
platform had, by the negligence and want of care and
foresight of the company, been allowed to get co
crowded, and so little control and management had
been exercised, that it became unsafe for passengers to
get to the carriages by it, and, as might have been
foreseen, an accident was the result.
His Lordship said he would not stop the case, but
would give the defendant leave to move to enter a
nonsuit if the Court above should be of opinion that
there wee no evidence to go to the jury, and he ehould
direct the jury to find-1, was there negligence on the
part of the company which caused the accident; and
2, had the plaintiff contributed by any act of hers to
the negligence?
The case then proceeded, and Mr. Lopes addressed
the jury for the defendants, contending that the cation
was built on purpose for Epsom races, and, with al its
appliances, made to meet the difficulty of crowds, after
the beet-known plans; that there was no negligence
whatever on the part of the company, and that r.early
one hundred porters had been told off to attend the
station, of whom, with police, about twenty attended
to this Victoria Platform. . .

A number of railway officials were then called to
establish three facto and they swore that they only saw
a crowd of nome 250 or 300 people on the platform ;
that there was no dangerous crowd whatever, and such
as there wan wee under perfect control. That pens
and barriers such as are used at the Curds! Palace to
regulate the crowd there would not do at all at Epsom,
although the crowd at the Crystal Palace was come.
times 35,0i0 a day. It was admitted that the de.
fendants had carried to Epsom about 25,000 people
that clay, and it wan stated they claneffied them by
making the third-olase paesengern go before nine in the
morning and leave Epsom after six at night.
A great deal of evidence wan given to show that the
company had an ample number of their nervanta upon
this particular platform, and that every precaution
was taken in the way of providing proper barriers.
Further, it wan said that there were only 300 or 400
persons upon the platform, and that the accident
happened in consequence of their makiog a rush upon
a farst.class carriage. It wan added that Mr. Dodds
himself seized hold of the carriage and endeavoured to
push the plaintiff in, and in this way himself contri-
buted to the accident.

His lordship carefully summed up the evidence to
the jury on the various wisstions raised, and dir,cted
them that if the plaintiff took • gentleman's arm and
he was guilty of negligence in endeavouring to get her
a place in a firt dare canisge the lady could not re-
cover, for she had commitzed the cuitrol over her
actions to the gentleman. He left it to the jury to
say on the evidence whether Mr. Dodds wee trying to
get a seat for the plaintiff, or was helplessly driven by
the crowd against the carriages. If the plaintiff and
Mr. Dodds put themselves in the crowd by an et of
negligence they could not excuse themselves from the
acts of the crowd, and if they had waited the scctient
would not have happened.
The jury retired, and after an absence of half an
hour returned with a verdict for the defendant%