The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-03-17 00:00:00

PrrrE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVEIt

ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST
RAILWAY COMPANIES.

In the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Divi•
pion, the cause of " Deriyer v. the Great Northern
Rtilway Company" has been head, and vras an
action for c,impensation for eerious personal injuries,
and the only nneetion was the amount of compensation
to be awarded.
- - - -

- Mr. Waddy, Q C., and Mr. Edge were for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Digby Seymour, QC., and Mr. Dodd
for the defendants.

The plaintiff was a foreman bricklayer, who was
forty-three years of age, and lived at Wood-green,
near London. On the evening of the 25th January
last year he travelled in a third-class carriage from
Finsbury. park to Wood-green, and the train stopped
at Hornsey for ten minutes. Whilst it was stationary
another train ran into it, and the plaintiff's carriage
was separated from the rest of the train, and was
driven along the line, and it was a good deal broken
up.
The plaintiff was called to speak to his injuries, and
he came into court on crutches and gave his evidence
seated in a chair on the floor of the court. He said
that the second train ran into the rear of the one in
which he was, and pushed it forward. There were
several jumps of the carriage, but the first shock put
out the lamp, and he became unconscious for a short
time. When he came to he was In the dark, and could
not tell what was the matter; and when the carriage
stopped the other men seemed to fly out at the top of
the carriage. A porter then came and drew him up
between the seats. He was more than seven weeks
in St. Bartholomew's Hospital. His left thigh was
broken high up, his hip seemed kndcked up into his
body, and the leg was permanently shortened half an
inch. He had suffered very much with pain in the
back ever since, and he oould walk only a few steps
without his crutches.

Medical evidence was given that probably the
plaintiff would never be able again to do the ordinary
work of a bricklayer; he would not be able to go up
ladders for instance, nor could he do much stooping
whilst the back remained in its present state.

Several medical gentlemen were examined for the
defendants, and they gave a much more hopeful
opinion as to the futdre of the plaintiff. It was said
that with proper care and treatment he might walk
without crutch or stick in six months, and that
shortening of the leg half an Inch was not of much
consequence; probably, however, the plaintiff could
not prudently in the future go up ladders and
scaffolds.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
21,000.

In the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
of Justice the bearing of the case of "Bullock v. the
South-Eastern Railway Company," which had occu-
pied the Court since Saturday last, was again re umed
and concluded on Tuesday. The plaintiff in it sought
to recover damages in compensation for personal in-
juries which she alleged she had sustained through the
negligence of the oefendants, while travelling as a
passenger upon their line. The defendants denied
their negligence, and pleaded contributory negligence.
Mr. Matthews, Q.C., and Mr. Lehmann appeared
for the plaintiff; and the Attorney-General, Mr.
Biron, Q.C., and Mr. Bremner were for the railway
company.

It appeared that the plaintiff is a young lady, Miss
Mary Bullock, residing with her mother at 20, Col-
ville-square, Notting-hill, London. She is a member of
the travelling theatrical troupe known as Bullock's
Marionettes. On the 6th of August last, Miss Bullock
and the troupe travelled down from Hastings to Dover
by the 9.20 a.m. train, vitt Ashford, on the defendants'
line. It appears that the arrival platform of the
Dover Station can only accommodate a length
of train composed of ten ordinary vehicles; and upon
the morning in question the train in which the
plaintiff journeyed was of greater length than this,
and in consequence several of the rear carriages
remained beyond the platform when the train brought
up at Dover Station. Mies Bullock happened to be
in one of these cars. The passengers were alighting,
and a porter offered to lift the young lady from the
carriage on to the line; this she declined, hut when
she had stepped down to the continuous foot-board
she took the porter's proffered hand. In jumping
to the ground— a short distance only—it seems that
a steel band, being part of the article known among
ladies as a dress improver, caught in the step, and
she fell on to the line, dragging the porter with
her. The particulars delivered by the plaintiff de-
tailed her injuries resulting from the fall as follows,
viz. :—lnjury to the spinal cord, fracture of the left
hip, a displacement or the pelvis, weakening of the
heart, shattered nerves, causing St. Vitus's dance,
general debility, and shock to the entire system.
Among the items in the bill of the plaintiff's expenses
consequent on her accident was one of £2BB 155., Dr.
Ambler's bill for attendance on the plaintiff at Dover.
Dr. Ambler had to travel on these occasims from
London, and charged 15 guineas each visit. There
was also another item of £7B for Dr. Lee's attendances
at Dover.
idr•

iven on both

A great deal of evidence was given aides,
and among the witnesses called in support of the
plaintiff's case was her mother.
.Mr. Henry Lee,
F.R.C.S., who attended her during her illness, said
that she would be unable to practice her former
vocation in conr ection with her Marionetee troupe.
Dr. Ambler took a somewhat more hopeful view
of her case, while Mr. Boden, F.R.C.S., thought
it would take about two or three years for Miss
Bullock's complete recovery.
Other evidence having been given, Mr. Le Gros
Clerk, Mr, W. Scovell Savory, and Mr. Arkwright,
experienced medical gentlemen, were also called, and
these all considered that Miss Bullock's injuries were
nothing like so serious as had been attempted to have
been established. Th,ugh they admitted the young
lady had no doubt sustained some hurt, yet none of
her injuries were of a very serious character, and no
bones at all had been fractured.

His Lordship having summed up, left the three
following questions to the jury :-1. How much VIM
the plaintiff entitled to for her sufferings, past and
future? 2. How much for medical expenses? 3. And
how much for other expenses incidental to her acci:
dent?

The jury retired to consider these questions at 4.15,
and returned at 4.50. In answer to the first question
they gave 1,000 guineas; and adding to this the
medical and othf r expenses, they gave a verdict for
the plaintiff for £1,344.
Lord Coleridge gave judgment for that amount, and
certified for a special jury.