Rattray v Cork and Macroom Railway Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 February 1879
• Date: 20 February 1879
• Court: High Court

Ex. Div.

RATTRAY

and

THE CORK AND MACROOM RAILWAY COMPANY.

Phillips v. PhillipsELRUNK 4 Q. B. Div. 127; 39 L. T. (N. S.) 556.

Hoey v. The Belfast Junction Railway CompanyUNK Ir. R. 5 C. L. 206.

Clarke v. HolmesENR 7 H. & N. 937.

Bustros v. WhiteELR 1 Q. B. Div. 427.

Wilson v. Church 9 Ch. Div. 552.

Scott v. Dublin & Wicklow Railway CompanyUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 377.

Doyle v. KinahanUNK Ir. R. 4 C. L. 150.

Smith v. Mc AuleyUNK Ir. R. 8 C. L. 525.

Tuff v. WarmanENR 5 C. B. (N. S.) 573.

Pleading — Contributory negligence —— G. O. XVIII., R. 11 — Master and servant — Servant's knowledge of dangerous nature of employment.

Ex. Div. RATTRAY v. THE CORK AND MACROOM 11AILWAY 1879. COMPANY. ',Feb. 19, 20. Pleading-Contributory negligence-Judicature Act, 1877, Sched. R. 23- G. 0. XVIII., B. 11-Master and servant-Servant's knowledge of danÂgerous nature of employment. The pleading Rules under the Judicature Act, 1877, allow a defence of conÂtributory negligence to be pleaded in the general form sanctioned by the authoÂrities under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1853, without setting forth in detail the particular facts in which the alleged contributory negligence conÂsists. In an action, under Lord Campbell's Act, against employers for negligence resulting in the death of a servant : Plea, that for a reasonable time before the injuries the deceased knew of the dangerous nature of the employment, the circumstances which rendered it dangerous being stated In the plea :-Held not embarrassing. MOTION on behalf of the Plaintiff to set aside paragraphs of the statement of defence as embarrassing. The action was brought by the widow of James Rattray, an engine-driver, who was killed while in the Defendants' employment, and in charge of a train which ran off the line in consequence, as was alleged, of the railroad and. permanent way being in a defective condition through the neÂgligence of the Defendants. The statement of defence contained six paragraphs. The 1st and. 2nd were as follows :-" 1st. James Rattray, in the statement of claim mentioned, by his own want of ordinary care so far directly contributed to the happening of the injuries complained of, that but for the said want of ordinary care on his part the same would not have happened. The DefenÂdants could not by the exercise of ordinary care and caution on their part have avoided the consequences of the said want of care on the part of the said James Rattray. 2nd. For a reasonable time before, and. at the time of the injuries complained of, the said James Rattray well knew that the permanent way and. sleepers were in the defective and dangerous condition described. in the second paragraph of the statement of claim, and with such knowledge con VOL. IV.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 387 tinned to act as engine-driver on said line, and the Defendants Ex. Div. were...