The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-08-14 00:00:00

A "MENTAL SHOCK."

At the Asaizss held at Leeds, the cauee of "Routh
it. the North-Eastern Railway Company" has been
tried, and was an action for personal injuries arising
from the negligence of the defendants.
The plaintiff is a professional accountant living in Leeds,
and on the 19th of July lie and his wife started by the
train train Ilkley on their way home Ilkley is a terminus,
and there is one platform. Plaintiff took his seat by
the window on the platform side and his wife by the window
1111 the If sPie. There are points a short distance outside
the station. When the train cams to the points some
carriages went on one lit e and some on the other The
plaintiff fIIA his wife were thrown forwards and backwards,
and the plaintiff was II and sick in beil for a week, and for
six weeks could not attend Pi his business. Ills wife also
eoniplained of feeling ill and nervous It appeared that the
plaintiff had tunitiled upstairs on another occasion at a roll-
any station and hurt his knee, and thereupon had expected
the railway company to pay his call fares The surgeon who
was called far the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff a
symptomn were consistent with fright, though also with
'hock to the nerves and the shaking if the carriage.
ccordieg to the plaintiff's case the train was going at ten
miles an hour The plaintiff's wife was locking out of the
wiltdOW aud saw a man lying down on the rails, and she
screamed out to her husband that they had run over a man.
At that moment the ...Went occurred. A man afterwards
Came from between the carriage. and said it was not his
fault, as a carriage door had been left open, and it had hit
him no the head, and he had inlet go the points.
U he close of the plaintiff scone, Mr. Overend submitted
hat there was no evilence of negligence to go to the Jury,

ant
%Ir. Kemplay called his Lordship's attention to the ease of
" hint o he Great Northern R olaay Company," wMre it
War laid down t at the more tint of a train 111111141 R off the
hoe from some unexplained Callbe is not evidence of negli-

settee.
II s Lordship said he would take a note of the Objection,
hip lie sh,ruld leave the case to the jury
On the p.,rt ri thede'endents, the ease was that the points-
man •aw rho doors on the if aide were closed when the [run
lot the platform. The train was coming at audit three
mice an hour. He turned his hack to work the points, all
op. tied door caught him on the head and threw hint down.
There was really no thick; no coupling cat broken. The
plainiiff made no el anplaint at the time, ex..ept that his wife
a, as frightened It appeared, aecording to the man who
°eked the pdtits, ti at tnere were only four paasengera in
all and noire at all in the carriage where the door had
flown open
One ol the jury asked if they kicked the doers on the off
side if the train, and was told that the company's servants
hive orders now not to lock the doors on either side.
The guard of the train eaiit he had seen all the doors pro- •
perry cloud on both side, before the train started. Alter
the accident th • plaintiff put his head out of the window and
asked quite naturally and quietly why they were cropping.
He said they were hot hurt, only the lady was ft ightened.
Two priasengers were culled, w hir said they felt no shock
whatever. One said his little grandchild was looking out of
the whoodv and mlii, "Lob, father, the folks are getting
mit if the train; there is a carriage off the line." That was
tithe knew id it Another said there were num passengers
lit
Iris carmen
His Lordship t Why, these are like the men in buckram. I
thought there were only four in all.
Die witness paid he felt a bit of a jerk, but it was soon
over.
His LorilsWp left it to the jury to Pay, drat, was th.re
negligence, or was it air accident. If the latt,r, there was
an end 14 the cue. If there was a aeeret defect in the door
whi,h a reasonable and proper examination would not dis-
cover, then the company would not be liable. Ile pointed
out that front the time the train let Leeds until it started
on its return journey there would he no occasion to open
any of the doors on the off side. If they thought there was
negligence, then came the second question, was there any In-
jury In consequence of the tregli,euce? Wu there any shock
sin the nervous system 1 Was there a bodily shock or was
there a mental shock arising from the negligence? If so,
they must tind for the plaintiff But if they thought it was
only a fright athing froni an excessively nervous tempera-
ment. tlmt would not render the company liable. Ills Lord-
ship lastly concluded a very lucid summing up by leaving
the question if damages t r the jury.
Verdict fire the plaintiff, 4.26.
In answer to hi, Lordship, the jury said: We find negid
gence, and we think it Iran a mental shock, the remit of the
. accident.
I Leave to move was given to the defendants, on the ground
, of there being no evidence of negligence, and the finding of
, the jury as to the mental shock.