The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-05-31 00:00:00

-AV.1:10A1 AUAIIIST A RAILWAY
e: COMPANY.

i.00.---I—erz—willis' ".

In the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
of Justice, before Lord Coleridge t,nd a Special Jury,
the cause "Bertin v. the London and Brighton Rail-
way Company" has been tried, and was a case which
had arisen out of a railway accident. It was an
action by a photographer at Brighton—residing at
Shoreham—for an injury caused by his being thrown
down as he was Qoetting out at Shoreham—by reason,
as he alleged, of the train suddenly moving after it
had stopped, whereas the case for the company was
that it was the consequence of a mere accident casually
arising.

,and 3671Th'xitlr were for the
plaintiff; Mr. Ael'ltyre, Q.C., and Mr. Macrae were
for the company.
The case for the plaintiff was that on the night of
the 11th of May last year he had gone from
Brighton to Shoreham by the eleven o'clock train,
and that on its arrival at Shoreham Station, after it
had quite stopped and come to a standstill, and after
some one who was waiting to go on by the train had
opened the door of the carriage, he was getting out
when the train suddenly moved, or gave a sort of
jerk, and this threw him down on the platform.
Several of his ribs were broken, and the ligatures of
one of his ankles were lacerated. He was confined to
his bed for three weeks, unable to go out for six
weeks, and he had been for three months incapaci-
tated from carrying on his business as usual. He was
confirmed as to the circumstances of the accident by
two respectable witnesses (one of them the passenger
who had opened the door of the carriage), and a re-
spectable medical man who attended him gave evi-
dence as to the injuries sustained. His charges were
only £5.
The case for the company was that the train could
not possibly have moved aft erit had once fully stopped
and come to a standstill, as it had a continuous brake,
and that, therefore, there could not have been any
such jerk as stated, and that, in fact, the accident had
arisen in this way—that in getting out the plaintiff
dropped his stick, stooped to pick it up, slipped, and
fell, the platform being slippery, as the night was wet.
To eupport thin ease a lad, who acted as booking
clerk, and was taking the tickets, was called and stated
that Mr. Bertin had actually got out of the carriage,
and was standing on the platform when he dropped
his stick, and stooping to pick it up, over-balanced
himself and fell. One or two witnesses, one of them
a passenger and another a porter, was called, who
gave evidence that they had seen no jerk. Then the
engine driver and the fireman stated that the train
had the Westinghouse-brake, and that after it had been
applied it was impossible that the train could move,
and it was admitted that it was in good order;
but then it appeared that when the train was being
brought up to the platform the Westinghouse brake
was taken off and a hand-brake put on, the Westing-
house brake being used to check the speed of a train
before it reaches the station, a hand-brake to bring it
in. It further appeared that at Worthing some one
had complained that there had been a jerk at Shore-
ham, by which a gentleman had been thrown out,
though the guard denied that this was the fact. And
it also appeared that the plaintiff had written a letter
to the company the day after the accident, in which
he ascribed it to a jerk in the train. On this evi-
dence Mr. M'lntyre contended that the defence was
established.
Mr. Willis, in reply on the part of the plaintiff,
described it as utterly incredible, that in such a way,
as represented, merely from a fall in stooping to pick
up a stick, such injuries could have been caused as
had been proved beyond a doubt, the breaking of
several ribs and the laceration of an ankle.
Lord Coleridge, in summing up the case to the jury,
said it depended on what they thought of the witnesses
on each side. The plaintiff and two respectable
witnesses swore positively, that the train had Come to
a stand-still when the plaintiff was getting out, that
there as a jerk in the train, and that he fell on the
platform. One of them had actually opened the door
himself in order to get in, so they could hardly be
mistaken. And then there was the undoubted fact of
the nature of the injuries, some ribs broken, and the
ligaments of an ankle lacerated. It was rather alarm-
ing to think of such injuries as these from a simple
falling down on the floor while stopping. It was for
the jury to consider whether this was probable, and
certainly the nature of the injuries looked more like
a fall from the carriage than a mere fall on the floor
of the
platform. As to the witnesses for the com-
pany, they could not have seex. so clearly as the two
witnesses for the plaintiff, who were close to him at
the time, and again a passenger might have got out
before the jerk came, and so his evidence that he felt
no jerk might be true, and yet the plaintiff's evidence
might be true. Then there was the remarkable fact
of the complaint at Worthing that there had been a
jerk. As to the Westinghouse brake, it had been put
on no doubt before the train got up to the station,
but it had been taken off, and so it had no bearing on
the case. As to damages, the doctor's charges had
been extremely moderate, and the case altogether had
been put very fairly before them on both sides.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, but in a
few minutes came into court with a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages £3OO, for which his Lordship at
once gave judgment.