The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-05-05 00:00:00

ACCIDENT ON THE GREAT WESTERN

RAILWAY.

Shortly before midnight on Saturday a serious col-
lision occurred at the Taplow station of the Great
Western Railway between the 5.40 On. up Bristol
fast goods train and a down train, which was shunt-
ing some trucks at the time of the accident. The
locomotive of the up fast goods train was thrown off
the line and totally disabled, its wheels being em-
bedded in the ballast of the permanent way,
while about twenty trucks, several of which were
forced above others, were more or less damaged,
some being completely shattered. The work of
clearing the line was one of considerable diffi-
culty. Upon the cattle being extricated from the
shattered trucks, sixteen of the animals had to be
slaughtered on the spot in consequence of the serious
injuries they had received. With the exception of the
shock, the driver and stoker of the Bistol train were
uninjured. Under the direction of Mr. Pearce,- an
empty train was run down from Slough Junction, to
the east side of Taplow Station, when the passengers
and bags of the mail and limited mail on the arrival
from the west were transferred, and conveyed to Pad-
dington with as little delay as wal possible under the
circumstances. By about 10 o'clock next morning the
down line was cleared for use, the trains between
Taplow and Maidenhead passing over a single line of
rails till one o'clock, when the up ro4sl_wap also rtasly
fiiettie-traffie; Which-was carried- on uninterruptedly
for the remainder of the day.

On Saturday there was issued a Government Bill,
introduced by Mr. Trevelyan, for facilitating the regis-
tration of Parliamentary voters in Ireland.

ACCIDENT TO A BYSTANDER-QUES.

TION OF LIABILITY.

On Monday, in the High Court of Justice, Queen's
Bench Division. judgment was given in the case of
"Batchelor v. Fortescue," and which raised a ques-
tion of some importance as to the liability of con-
tractors to mere bystanders for aczidents arising from
some defect in their machinery. It was an action
under Lord Campbell's Act to recover compensation
for the death of Henry Batchelor. The facts of the
case were these :

One Hiney was possessed of a plot of land in
Bothnal•green•road, on a portion of which land ware-
houses had been erected, and on the residue excava-
tions were being carried on by the defendant, who had
contracted with Hiney for the work. To carry out
the work he, by his men, worked a steam winch and
crane, with a chain and iron tub attached to it—the
winch and crane being on the upper edge of the land,
which was immediately contiguous to the excavation.
The mode of working was this :—The iron tub was
filled with earth—weighing about 15 cwt.; the steam
winch then hoisted up the tub to the level of the
ground, and the crane then swung it round to where a
cart was waiting to receive the earth, and into which
the contents of the tub were emptied. The machinery
was the defendant's property.

The evidence on the part of the plaintiff proved that
the deceased was employed by Hiney to watch the
materials and buildings belonging to him—and on
Good Friday, the day of the accident—the deceased
was watching the defendant's men at their work. He
had nothing to do with the excavations, and he need
not have been where he was to watch the buildings
and materials; but he stood and allowed the iron tub
with the earth in it to travel some 3ft. over his head,
when the chain (which was somewhat worn) broke,
and the tub and its contents fell upon the foot of the
deceased and caused injuries from which he after-
wards died. Mr. Justice Lopes directed a non-suit,
and there was an application by way of appeal from
his decision. Mr. Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice
Manisty granted the rule nisi. The case had been
argued at some length during the last sittings before
Mr. Justice Grove and Mr, Justice Lopes, and the
Court had taken time to consider their judgment.

Mr. Justice A. L. Smith now delivered a written
judgment in favour of the defendant. He said,—lt
was conceded upon the argument that the deceased
had nothing whatever to do with the defendant's men,
nor was it any part of his duty to superintend or
watch them at their work. We are of opinion that
there was no evidence given to show that the plaintiff
was other than a mere licensee (even if his case could
be put as high as that) at the spot where he was at
the time of the accident, and that he stood where be
did subject to all the risks attending his being where
he was; and that there was no duty cast upon
the defendant to take due care of him. The cause of
action alleged was that the defendant knowingly per-
mitted a chain to be used, which was unfit for use, but
of this there was no evidence, nor was there any evi-
dence of any duty incumbent on the defendant to take
care to prevent danger to the deceased. There was
slight evidence of negligence on the part of the defen-
dant's men, in that the chain was somewhat worn,
but as there was no duty on the defendant to take due
care, the learned Judge was not wrong in directing
nonsuit, and therefore the judgment entered by him
for the defendant must stand, and this application
must be discharged.