The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-04-09 00:00:00

THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAY
COMPANIES.

In the High Court of Justice judgment has been given in
the cause of "Coleman v. the London and North-Western
Railway Company.—We take the following report of the
case from The Times:—
The case raised a most important question as to the
liability of a railway-company for the consequencesiof
running their trains when it was known that their
line had been damaged or endangered by floods. The
action was by a passenger who had sustained an injury
through an engine getting off the line (a branch line)
in consequence of its being flooded; and the evidence
was to this effect was proved that such was
the state of the line where the accident happened that
the main line was known to be unsafe by reason of the
flood, and that the state of the branch line, though not
actually known, might have been known by due
diligence; that there was no pilot engine sent on to
discover, and that the water, in fact, was over the branch
line and visible to the driver; while on the other hand,
it appeared that the branch line had never been
known to be flooded before (being on a higher level than
the main line) ; that the engine was driven by a careful
and experienced man directed to drive slowly
and carefully, and that he had so driven, and
that the water rose more rapidly than expected, &c.
On this evidence, the question of negligence being left
to the jury, they found for the plaintiff—damages,
£l5O. This was an application to set the verdict aside
on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence
to render the company liable, and it had been argued
by Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Buzzard, Q.C., for the
company; and by Mr. Lawrence, Q.C., and Mr. H.
Smith for the plaintiff. The learned judges had
taken time to consider their judgment, and now de-
livered it for the plaintiff :

Mr. Justice Lindley, in his judgment (which was
written and entered fully into the evidence), said,—
The duty of the company in such cases is to use all
possible care to secure their passengers against all storms
that may be expected to occur in the part of the country
through which the rail way runs. This was laid down in a
case heard before the Judicial Committee (1, " Moore's
Privy Council Cases," New Series), and in which, in ac-
cordance with other authorities, it was also laid down that
in cases of the destruction of the permanent way by a
storm it is the duty of the company to carry their pas-
sengers as safely as is practicable by the exercise of
the greatest practicable care and skill. No doubt, it
was also held in the case of "Redhead v. the Midland
Railway Company" (the case of a latent flaw in the
iron of an axletree) that if they have taken such care
they are not liable for the consequences of something
they could not possibly discover. But both cases com-
bined show that it is the duty of the company to take
all practicable care, although, if it appears that they
have taken such care, then if an accident occurs it must
be taken to be a misfortune for which they are not liable.
Now, in the present case it is impossible to say that
there was no evidence of the want of such care, look-
ing at the facts in evidence (which the learned Judge
fully stated on both sides, the substance being as
above stated). Without saying what would be the
proper effect of such evidence, it could not be with-
drawn from the jury. It was urged -that to have sent
on a pilot engine or taken any other of the precautions
suggested would have been useless or would not have
prevented the accident; but we cannot say that the
jury were wrong in rejecting that view. No doubt it
is hard on the company; for if he had been asked
whether he would go on by the branch line he pro-
bably would have preferred doing so to being de-
tained, but the company were bound to give him the
option and choose to run the risk of carrying him on
by the branch line, believing it to be safe, when, in
fact, it was unsafe. It does not appear, therefore,
that they took as much care as was practicable, but
the reverse; and therefore the verdict cannot be set
aside as against evidence.
Mr. Justice Mathew was of the same opinion. The
case came, he said, within the principle of the autho-
rities cited as to negligence, for which the companies
were liable, and he could not say that the jury were
wrong in coming to the conclusion that proper pre-
cautions had not been taken. It was known at the
station at Chester (where the branch line branches off)
that the water was out and was rising rapidly, and that
attempts made to communicate with the stations on the
branch line had failed; and in the course of the journey
it became manifest that the line was flooded in some
places; and it was said that water could be seen ; and
still the train went on, and floods were sweeping across
the line and washing away the ballast. The Court
was asked to discard all this evidence, though no evi-
dence was given on the part of the company to ex-
plain the condition of the line before the train
reached it. In such circumstances it was impossible
for the Court to say that there was no evidence of
negligence in driving the train through the flood over
the flooded line, and, therefore, the verdict could not
be set aside.