The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-14 00:00:00

COMPENSATION FOR RAILWAY
ACCIDENTS.

The Parliamentary Committee which has been ap-
pointed to inquire into this important subject, held their
first meeting yesterday, Mr. Headlam in the chair.
There was a large attendance of gentlemen connected
with the railway interest. The first witness was Mr. J.
Blenkinsopp, of the London and North Western Company,
who stated that he was honorary solicitor to the railway
association, and was well acquainted with the state of the
law before the passing of Lord Campbell's Act. His ex-
perience was that juries had given very excessive
damages, being led away by their feelings which had often
been wrought upon by the injured passengers being
brought into court, and a sensational scene
created. There was also a class of attornies who
devoted themselves to getting up such cases, and charged
their clients according to the result of the case, so that
in a great many cases all the compensation awarded did
not go into the pockets of the person injured or his repre-
sentatives. The greatest difficulty which the railways
had to meet was the allegation of nervous shock,"which
it was impossible to refute, and he mentioned two cases,
one in which one person got £3,900 on that allegation, and
another to whom the jury first awarded £2,000, but which
was afterwards reduced to £1,500 by the judges; but
about twelve months afterwards he came again on a re-
currence of the- symptoms, and got £1,500.. A
class of cases - which were frequent was that
of letter sorting clerks, who had to stand
up in the railway train, and wereliable to be thrown down.
In one case in which there was a clerk who had a salary
of £256, the jury awarded him £5,000, thus giving him
sufficient to buy a fee simple at the same value as his
salary. In another case there was a sum of £1,600
awarded to a man who was actually quite recovered in the
space of three months. In another case actual fraud was
discovered just as he was on the point of giving him
£l,OOO. In that case he prosecuted the claimant, and got
a conviction ; but in many cases, although the companies
knew they were being defrauded, they could not
bring it home to the person, and were obliged
to pay. As a general rule they admitted their
liability, except in some cases where the cause
of the accident was wholly beyond their control. They
had been held liable for a person stumbling over a barrow
on a platform. When an accident occurred they were held
liable for personal injury, and there was no general rule
laid down as to the amount of the damages. The judges
always charged the jury simply to weigh all the probabi-
lities of the injured person recovering his health, and
award reasonable damages. It often happened that a
certain class of attorneys communicated with the injured
persons or their friends, and offered to undertake
the case on condition of getting a portion of
the damages. Lord Campbell's Act affected
all damages to the person, and was not
confined to railways. If a gentleman's carriage
ran over a person in the street, the owner would
be liable to damages, but practically speaking the jury in
such case gave very moderate damages. In the case of
omnibus accidents larger damages are given, because the
company principle comes in. Scarcely any actions are
brought .against shipowners for accidents occurring on
board ship'i, or for loss of life at sea ; but there had been
such where it had been found that something has been
neglected which ought to have been done. In the case of
a railway company they were bound to carry all
the passengers who came, and there was scarcely
a single case in which the risk of carrying
them was not different. If a man was in
a certain position of life it might be so valuable that they
would have to pay £lO,OOO. For carrying that person
they would receive perhaps 30s. ; the life of another pas-
senger might not be worth more than £l,OOO yet they
would receive the same amount of fare. What they com-
plained of was that the risk was not equal, and he thought
that some system of assurance should be established,
limited to £3,000 first class, £2,000 second, and £l,OOO
but there was some difficulty about railway company be-
coming assurers. To shew the injustice of the present
system, he would mention that in one case a railway com-
pany had to pay £3,000 compensation where the fare was
in reality less than a penny.
Mr. Headlam : Yet; but if a person was entering a
station to go by train, and in consequenco of the fault of
the company he met with an accident, the company
would have to pay him compensation, although he had
not taken his ticket.

The witness said it would entirely depend on the
cause of the accident. The Carriers Act admitted the
principle that valuable articles should be insured, and
there was a limitation in case of horses, cattle, and
sheep. In regard to workmens trains, recent enactments
in the Metropolitan Private Acts had limited the lia-
bility to £lOO. The London, Chatham, and Dover Com-
pany volunteered to run cheap trains on that condition,
and in the case of the othermetropolitan lines an arrange-
ment was made by which, in consideration of running
cheap workmen's trains, the liability' should be thus
limited. The Royal Commission of 1866-67 recommended
that while railway companies should be held liable for all
accidents except those occasioned by their own negligence,
there should be a limitation in respect to the maximum
fares, and a compulsory assurance giving power to them
to increase their assurance up to the maximum in what-
ever class they might be. With regard to the liability of
theconapany they would like to have a fixed minimum
amount of compensation, say first class £5OO, second
£3OO, and third £2oo', with a compulsory assurance, so
that first class passenger could assure for £l,OOO for 2d.,
£2,000 for 6d, and £3,000 for Od. They did not wish
to become liable for a larger sum than £3,000, though the
subject of allowing a passenger to ensure up to £5,000, at
3d. per £l,OOO, had been discussed.
After hearing some further evidence from this witness,
the committee adjourned.

The consignment of Australian produce to the
Indian market has been a successful venture. Messrs.
Gillanders, Arbuthnot, and Co. have reported to the
Australian Committee the sale of the whole invoice of
wheat to the commissariat at favourable prices.
PRINCE ALFRED'S LETTER.—Prince Alfred's
letter to the Viceroy forms a fitting termination to his
India tour. So far as the people and the chiefs of India,
are concerned it is a political manifesto—as much a mes-
sage of grace and good will from the Queen herself as of
gratitude from her son. No one is forgotten. All is in
excellent taste. Every paragraph is most natural and not
the least that which refers to field-sports. The costly
hospitality of Lord Mayo is delicately hinted at. The
splendour of " the great Indian princes and chiefs" is not
allowed to overshadow the " entertainments" of " British
and Native gentlemen" and the labours of the 'railway
officials. Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras all receive their
due, as well as the cities of Hindostan ; the compliment
to Madras is especially gracefnl. The civil and military
officials, "of whose friendship I am proud," are not for-
gotten. Above all the people, those who are only too
truly described as " the poorer classes" are not dyer-
looked, nor are the efforts of those who care far them un-
acknowledged.—The Friend of India, May 12,