Adderley v Great Northern Railway Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 22 February 1905
• Date: 22 February 1905
• Docket Number: (1904. No. 6795.)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Adderley

and

Great Northern Railway Co. (1).

K. B. Div.

Appeal.

(1904. No. 6795.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1905.

Railway — Negligence — Evidence of — Liability of Railway Co. for injuries caused to passenger by act of drunken man admitted on their premises.

A. was a passenger by the defendants' railway. F., a drunken man, with a ticket, was admitted to the platform at O. station, and passed the barrier where the ticket-checker was stationed. F. was seen obviously drunk outside, but there was no evidence that there was anything in his conduct to attract the attention of the ticket-checker. F. then attempted to enter a first-class carriage, when the station-master ordered a porter to keep him back. Whilst the porter was leading F. along the platform, F. suddenly swung his arm and broke the window of the carriage in which A. was sitting, A. being severely injured by the broken glass. At the trial of an action for damages brought by A., and founded upon the alleged negligence and want of care on the part of the defendants, a verdict was found and judgment was entered for the plaintiff.

On motion by the defendants:—

Held, by Boyd and Wright, JJ. (Gibson, J., dissenting), that the verdict and judgment should be set aside and judgment entered for the defendants, on the ground that, even if there was evidence to support the finding by the jury of negligence, such negligence was not the causa causans, but only the causa sine qua non of the accident.

Held, by the Court of Appeal (Walker, L.J., diss.), that there ought to be a new trial of the action, as the case was left to the jury on the erroneous assumption that if the drunken man was “obviously drunk,” either the neglect to notice that condition, or the admission of him in that condition as a passenger, rendered the Company absolutely responsible for all that he did.

Per Walker, L.J.: There was evidence to support the findings of the jury, and the verdict should stand.

New Trial Motion.

The action, which was tried before Mr. Justice Kenny and a common jury at the Londonderry Summer Assizes, 1904, was brought by the plaintiff, claiming £1000 damages for injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants. The following short summary of the evidence given at the trial is taken from

the report of the learned Judge. The plaintiff, who was a piano-tuner, was, on the 29th March, 1904, a passenger travelling by a train on the line of the defendant Company from Derry to Fintona, which arrived at Omagh railway station at 12.20 p.m. Shortly before the train left the platform at Omagh station the window of the carriage in which the plaintiff was sitting was suddenly broken by a blow from the outside struck by one Farry, a cattle-dealer, and the plaintiff, who was sitting in the corner seat next the window, was struck by the broken glass, the sight of one eye being seriously impaired. The plaintiff had not seen Farry on the platform prior to the accident, but a witness who was called for the plaintiff swore that he saw Farry a short distance from the station entrance, with two friends, one on each side of him, leaning against a house, in a helpless state of intoxication; a second witness who also deposed to having seen Farry outside the station in a very drunken state, and being helped along by two men, swore that Farry could not possibly have passed an official of the Company without his condition being noticed; that he saw Farry on the platform in charge of a railway porter, who hesitated opposite the carriage in which the plaintiff was sitting, when Farry drew his fist and broke the window, and that Farry, when in the charge of the porter, was moving his arms and in an excited state. The ticket-checker swore that he was standing at the door leading on to the platform when Farry approached with two other men; that there was nothing about him that attracted his attention; that Farry had a season-ticket; and that the witness's attention was directed to preventing the other two men, who had no tickets, from entering the platform. The station-master swore that he saw Farry, who had a third-class ticket, trying to enter a first-class carriage; that he noticed he had some drink in him; that he told a porter to keep the man back; that the porter caught Farry by the arm; and, just as the train was starting, Farry waved his arm and struck the pane of glass.

The following by-law was put in evidence by the plaintiff:—“A person in a state of intoxication, or otherwise in an unfit or improper condition for being a passenger, … shall not enter or remain in or upon any carriage using the railway, or in or upon any part of the Company's premises, or any approach to any railway station of the Company. Any such person found in or upon any such carriage, premises, or approach, and failing to quit the same immediately upon request by any servant or agent of the Company, may, without prejudice to the penalty prescribed by by-law No. 1, be removed therefrom by or under the direction of such servant or agent.”

The further facts of the case are fully stated in the judgments delivered by the Divisional Court.

At the close of the plaintiff's case, counsel for the defendants asked for a direction on the grounds that there was no evidence of negligence or of any breach of duty on the part of the defendants, and that the injuries complained of were not the reasonable consequence of any negligence or breach of duty, if such existed. The learned Judge declined to direct.

The following were the questions submitted to the jury, the answers to which are appended.

1. Was the man who broke the window drunk when he passed through to the platform? Answer.—Yes.

2. Did the drunken man pass the ticket-checker in getting to the platform? Answer.—Yes.

3. Did the ticket-checker see that the man was drunk? Answer.—Yes.

4. Was the man so drunk when he passed the ticket-checker as to be obviously drunk? Answer.—Yes.

5. Was the porter at the time the window was broken trying to keep the drunken man away from the train or to get him into a third-class carriage? Answer.—He was trying to get him into a third-class carriage.

6. Did the porter then know that the man was drunk? Answer.—Yes.

7. If you find that the porter was trying to prevent the man entering the train, did the Company's servants adopt reasonable precautions to prevent him so entering it after they knew he was drunk? No answer.

8. If you find that the porter was trying to put the man into a third-class carriage, was the breaking of the window a reasonable result of the action of the porter? Answer.—Yes.

9. Was the accident due to the negligence of the defendant Company in allowing a drunken man upon their platform? Answer.—Yes.

10. Assess damages. £850.

Upon these findings, the learned Judge gave judgment for the plaintiff for £850 and costs.

The defendants now moved for an order that this verdict and judgment should be set aside, and judgment entered for the defendants, on the ground that there was no evidence to support the findings and verdict of the jury, and that the verdict was against the evidence and the weight of evidence, and that the injuries complained of were not the reasonable consequence of any negligent acts or omissions on the part of the defendants; or, in the alternative, for a new trial.

Wylie, K.C., Patchell, K.C., and Perceval C. Gaussen, for the defendants:—

1. The Judge at the trial should have directed a verdict for the defendants, as there was no evidence of any negligence on their part, or of any breach of duty owing to passengers on their line. The defendants were only bound to exercise reasonable care, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and the knowledge at their disposal. The ticket-checker swore that there was nothing about Farry to attract his attention when he passed the barrier, and there was no evidence to rebut this. When Farry was upon the platform, the defendants took every precaution to prevent an accident. There was no evidence in support of Answer No. 5: Pounder v. North-Eastern Railway Company (1); Cannon v. Midland Great Western Railway (2); Cahill v. Great Southern and Western Railway Company (3).

2. Assuming that there was originally negligence on the part of the defendants in allowing Farry upon the platform, there was no evidence to show that the breaking of the window was the result of anything but an accident. There was no connexion between such accident and the suggested negligence. “The negligence must in some way connect itself, or be connected by

evidence, with the accident,” per Lord Cairns in Metropolitan Railway Company v. Jackson (1). In that case there was negligence on the part of the defendants in allowing more than a proper number of passengers to enter a railway train, but no such evidence as could be said to have occasioned the injury complained of. The accident to the plaintiff could not have been foreseen; it was not the “ordinary or likely consequence” to result from the admission of Farry upon the platform: Sharp v. Powell (2). Murgatroyd v. Blackburn Tram Company (3), where a mishap was under the circumstances almost certain to occur, is, therefore, distinguishable.

The Company, if guilty of negligence, are not responsible for all the consequences which may, under any circumstances, arise: see judgment of Pollock, C.B., in Greenland v. Chaplin (4).

Henry, K.C., Todd, K.C., and Patton, for the plaintiff:—

[They contended that there was ample evidence in support of the findings of the jury.]

The injuries received by the plaintiff were the direct result of the negligence of the defendants in allowing the drunken man upon their premises, and in not keeping him under proper control when there. They should have enforced their by-law, and removed him from the station. The duty to protect passengers from dangers of...