The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-07-30 00:00:00

A RAILWAY COMPENSATION CASE.

In the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Divi-
sion, before Mr. Baron Huddleston and a common
jury, the cause of "Lawson v. The London, Brighton,
and South Coast Railway Company" has been heard.
Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Dunham were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. C. Macrae appeared for the defend-
ants.—We take the following report of the case from
The Times:—

This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for personal injuries received while travelling
on the defendant's line. The defendants denied their
negligence, set up a case of contributory negligence
on the part of the plaintiff, and denied any special
damage.
The plaintiff, Miss Lawson, is a manufacturer of
gentlemen's scarves and neckties and a mantuamaker,
employed by large firms, and herself employing several
hands. She took a ticket from Whitechapel
to Liverpool-street (London), on February 7, 1879; at
about 2.50 the train reached Liverpool-street, when,
the plaintiff said, she got lip to open the window by
the strap, but the door, being unfastened, flew open,
and she was shot out on to the platform and became
insensible. She said she saw an old lady, who got
out at Shoreditch, shut the door after her; but a
Miss Kellard, whom the plaintiff called, from America,
and who was with her in the carriage, said she
knew the old lady had not fastened the door, but she
did riot tell the plaintiff because she did not think she
would get up. In consequence of this accident she
received a contusion on her left knee, an incised wound
under her chin, bruises down her left side, and ap-
peared to be suffering from nervous debility and shock
to the system. She remained in bed seven weeks,
and her doctor (Dr. Atkins), who was called, and de-
posed to the injuries) attended her three months; his
bill was £l5 18s. 6d. The plaintiff put her loss of
business, at £4 a week, at £56, and extra nursing, &c.,
£23.
The case for the Company was that the plaintiff
had stepped from the train while it was in motion and
so had fallen. One of the officials said he had asked
her after the accident, "'Whatever made you step
out like that when the train was in motion? '
He had seen the plaintiff open the docr and delibe-
rately step out.
Alter Mr. Macrae had summed up the defendant's
case,
Mr. Kemp replied, observing that some railway
companies tried to shift their duties on to the pas-
sengers, and some had the impudence to ask the
travellers to " please shut the doors after them."
Patent locks, as this one was, soon got corroded with
dirt, dust, and grease, and so did not shut so readily
after a little use.

Mr. Baron Huddleston summed up, saying the
r .aintiff was bound to satisfy the jury not only that
che defendants had been guilty of negligence which
caused the accident, but that she had not contributed
to it herself—i.e., that she could not by the exercise of
ordinary care have avoided the accident. It was said
she could not have been trying to open the window by
the strap, as she asserted, as she had a sixpenny piece
and two pennies in her hand, and these were found
clutched tight in her hand after the fall. But that
applied with equal force to the attempt to turn the
door-handle spoken to by the defendants' witnesses.
If the plaintiff was entitled to recover and had not
acted carelessly, then they would give her reasonable
damages in compensation for the loss of business,
expenses out of pocket, and the sufferings she had
undergone.
The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £l2O.

His Lordship; then gave judgment accordingly.