The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-06-25 00:00:00

COMPENSATION FOR RAILWAY
ACCIDENTS.

Two cf the judges- Mr. Baron Martin and Mr.
Baton Bramwell—were examined on Monday after-
noon before the Sob ct Committee appointed to con-
sider the law with reference to the liab lity of railway
compahies in the matter of compensation for accidents.
Before their lordships were examined, Mr. Ileadlam,
the chairman of the committee, informed them of the
object of the inquiry, stated the na.ure of the objec-
tions entertained by the railway companies to the
prment law, and said the committee, having heard the
companies' aide of the roesti,n, wished to have the
benefit of their lordships' experience.

Baron Martin, rephlrg to varieus questions, said that
unless there were sine special provisions in Acts of Parlia-
ment to the contrary, of which he was not aware, the lia-
bility of the railway companies was regulated by the common
law of Kurland. With respect to the carriage of goods, the
common law of England Wakes it incurularnt upon public
carriers to carry all goods that come to them, hut there is no
such liability by the common law to compel them to carry
pa,sengers, and in point of faA he was not aware that there
was any penalty it they reluaeri to carry passengers. They
carried passengers in the same way as any other people seek-
ing to make money by business, anti consequently they
sought to carry as many passengers as they count
Baron Bramwell said that the idea of the companies was
thot they could not m t rid of their liability to carry passen-
gers, and therefore to pay them compensation for injuries
but he agreed with his brother, Baron Martin, that they
might ref use to take them altogether.
Mr. Hearn .nr pointed out the difference In the value of
certain ii, es, nni asked whether it would be in the power of
the companms to rehire to carry persons whose lives were
very valuable, Except at an enhanced fare.
, Baron Martin said that would be Illegal. It would be legal
to charge them up to the extent of the maximum fare, but
they were all restrained with respect to the fares to be
charged to each class of passengers, and therefore all they
could say was "We cannot take you." They could not say,
" We will only take you if you pay twenty timos the amount
of the fare." The ordinary m ale of performing their duty
was to say, " We won't take you at all."
Baron Bramwell: My notion is that they might sty to every
passenger, "if we carry you at the ordinary fares we sill
lit he liable for any accident." I don't know anything that
could prevent their doing that, tee.ng that they arenot bound
to carry at all. .

ii Mo tin said that If they were called upon to give
an authoritative opinion on the subject they ought really to
have some little time to consider it, because he had great
doubt as to whether a company could say they would carry
a passenger, but that whatever occurred on the journey,
under no circumstances would they be responsible. In fact,
it would be repugnant to the spirit of the contract Ile
would rather not answer the question without considera-
tion, . . .

.-The Chairman said that railway compuiles thought it a
hardship in the law that they were matte liable when there
was no fault .41 their own part and Where there had been
no positive negligence, and he put the case of the injustice
of making the master cf a private carriage liable for injury
caused by his driver, when he had taken the very best means
he COUlki to et the most careful driver.

Barrie Martin svid that that was a question Involving the
general law of master 21111 servant, which law was as out as
any In the country, and it was a well-established principle of
the law that a ma,ter was liable for the negligence of his
servants.

Baron Bramwell said that if his servant was driving him
in his carriage and CaWell damage to another, he would be
Ii able, bee.vn he was driving him as his servant, and he had
a riaht to control him, and tell him whether to drive fast or
alw ; but If he hired scab, the edaman was not his servant
in law, and If he told him to drive so and so, he might any
that he would drive fast or slow, just as he pleased, so long
no he was within the limits of the law. The result was, that
if he was riding in hie own carriage he was liable ; but if he
j ilibed a carriage or a c uichmart for a day, the rule
did not apply. There did not seem to him to be any
sont,d principle in that, and it seemed to be a relic
of tbe old Roman law in which the servants were really
slaves, and consequently the master was liable for their
acts just as he would be for the damage done by his cattle
its trespassing. Subsequently the learned Baron said that
he Cu. a tallway shareholder himself, and might therefore
be supposed to be in their favour, but his opinion was that
it was a matter of bargain between the passenger and the
company, and therefore no hardelp could arise. lie should
have no objection to the liability itnelf provided that none
hut honest claims were made ; but he objected to a liability
involving dishonest claims, and very often foolish and dis-
bored verdicts. lie thought whatever rules the companies
made, the general law would render them half° ; but he
thought that the suggestion made that the railway cons-
parties should be allowed to limit their liability by way of
assurance was a valuable one.

Boron Martin thought that the public would have no right
to complain of such a provision as that of being called 011 to
pay f v assurance, and that the company should not be held
liable to damages beyond the amount assured, but bethought
that in practice in every instance the companies would be
held liable to pay the highest amount Ile did not think that
so far as his experience went the claims et inured railway
passengers were fictitious. In most cases in which claims
were made they had sustained some Mint), though they
might he exaggerated. Ile belicved that in case such an
alteration were mode the highest damages which could be
would always he given, and it was for the railway companies
to consider whether they would gainer lose by it.

The learned judges were then examined as to the
administration of the law, and
Baron Martin said that it was not likely that seventeen
Jnoges would come to a unanimous ophd In as to the precise
=valor in which the law should ha administered, but he had
always endeavoured to keep the damages doer, to a moderate
amount. Ile could not call to mind any one case he had
tried in which he thought the Oamsges were outrageous.
. . . . _

--ii;r-o—n1;;;;;;;if:iisd"-ii,:i1oi7;;;f1;11,1 he not co7,:ider the
damsges awarded too excessive, but he had in many cases
. .

been rather surprised at their moderation. Ile thought,
however, that the railway companies were very unwise to
having the cases tried by special j tales, because as they always
gave their verdict according to the value they attached to
their own lives and limbs, it was likely that they gave much
higher damages than ordinary jurymen would give.
Baron Martin said that he thought extreme damages were
given, front the example Fri, in the early history of railways,
when there was a general impression on the minds of the
puMic that they were going to he extremely profitable under-
takings. Ile thought it very desirable that there should be
an inspect by the Board of Trade, and that a commission
should be Issued establishing a particular court in which to
try railway cases. There was no doubt that a certain class
of attorneys and doctors made it a business to get up these
cases—at all events he had seen the same faces very fre-
quently. lie was also of opinion that there should be a
medical man attached to the court, perfectly independent
both of tne railway companies and the passengers, who
should give his opinion as to the condition of the passenger
and the effect of the injury.