網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

(2.) £20, the value of the four hampers undelivered by the Against

defendants.

common carrier

for non

delivery, If a railway company issues a ticket for a journey extending beyond &c. their own line, that is evidence of a contract to carry over the other as well as their own line, and their liability to the passengers in such cases

Liability of

carriers of is not affected if the injury is caused on the line not belonging to them. (Buxton v. North Eastern Rail. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 549; Thomas v.

passengers. Rhymney Rail, Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 226 ; s. C., Ex. Ch. L. R. 6 Q. B. 266.) However, they are not liable for the wrongful act of third persons over whom they have no control. (Wright v. Midland Rail. Co., L. R. 8 Ex. 137.) A carrier may contract himself out of his liability for negligence. (See MoCawley v. Furness Rail. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 57 ; Gallin v. London and North Western Rail. Co., L. R. 10 Q. 212.) The issuing of a Issuing ticket for a journey from one place to another is evidence of a contract ticket evi. to convey the passenger within a reasonable time on such journey, but dence of not that the train shall arrive at the time expected. (Hurst v. Great contract to Western Rail. Co., 34 L. J. C. P. 264.) Railway companies are liable to

carry any person who has taken a ticket for a train advertised in their time within bills to run at a particular time if it does not run (Denton v. Great reasonable Northern Rail, Co., 25 L. J. Q. B. 129), or there is not room in it for time. such person. (Great Northern Rail. Co. v. Hawcroft, 21 L. J. Q. B. 178.) Where railway companies stipulate in their time-tables, &c., that they will not be responsible for delays in arrival or departure of trains, they will still be liable for unreasonable delays, though they are not liable in case of reasonable delay. (Prevost v. Great Eastern Rail. Co., 13 L. T. N. S. 20.)

Where passengers are carried at their own risk (as in the case of Where pascattle drovers holding a free pass with such a stipulation), the carrier is senger is not liable for injuries through negligence, either on the transit or on the carried by a company's premises, in consequence of their being in a dangerous condi- free pass. tion. (Gallin v. The London and North Western Rail. Co., 44 L. J. Q. B. 80.) A similar contract with one company protects another company over whose lines the passenger is carried for injuries caused through the negligence of the latter on their line.

Liability for personal luggage.}-With regard to the luggage of passen. Liability of gers it seems that the liability of carriers with reference to it is the same carrier for as with reference to ordinary goods. (Richards v. London & Brighton passenger's Rail. Co., 7 C. B. 839; Macrow v. Great Western Rail. Co., L. R. 6 luggage. Q. B. 612, 618.) See, however, Stewart v. London f North Western Rail. Co., 33 L. J. Ex. 199, where Pollock, B., says that the liability with regard to luggage is only co-extensive with the liability as regards the passengers, and see Tallay v. Great Western Rail Co., L. R. 6 C. P. 44, 50, 51, Personal luggage means the class of articles which are ordi. narily or usually carried by passengers as their luggage. (Hudston v. Midland Rail, Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 366 ; Macrow v. Great Western Rail. Co., supra.) See decisions on questions whether certain things were personal luggage. (Macrow v. Great Western Rail. Co., supra; Phelps v. London : North Western Rail. Co., 34 L. J. C. P. 259; Mytton v. Midland Rail. Co., 4 H. & N. 615 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 385; Becher v. Great Eastern Rail. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 241.)

If a railway company which, by the terms of its regulations allowsa pas- Where senger to take personal luggage, takes as luggage what it knows to be mer.

passenger chandise, it cannot claim exemption from liability for the loss of such takes mermerchandise, on the ground of its not being personal luggage; but if a pas- chandise senger who knows he is only entitled to take personal luggage takes as personal merchandise, he is not entitled to recover for its loss from a railway com- luggage. pany to whom he has given no notice of the contents of the package ; he

recover

Statement of Defence. Defence to 1. The defendants deny that, on the 1st of February, 1875, action against

Messrs. F. & M., of B., delivered to the defendants ten hamcommon carrier for loss and

takes it at his own risk. (Cahill v. London f North Western Rail. Co., delay. 31 L. J. C. P. 271 ; Belfast & Ballymena Rail. Co. v. Keys, 9 H. L. Cas.

556.) The fact of a package being marked "Glass" is not sufficient notice to a company that the contents are merchandise within the meaning of

the foregoing propositions. (16.) What Measure of damages. ]-If in consequence of the wrongful delay or damages a erroneous information of a carrier, a passenger is obliged to hire another passenger conveyance or to stop a night on his journey, he can recover his expenses. may or

but he is not entitled to general damages for the derangement or loss of may not

business, trouble, or inconvenience caused to him. (Great Northern

Rail. Co. v. Hawcroft, 21 L. J. Q. B. 178 ; Denton v. Great Northern from the Rail. Co., 25 L. J. Q. B. 129; Woodger v. Great Western Rail. Co., L. R. carrier. 2 C. P. 318.) Where a railway company instead of conveying the plaintiff

to the station to which she had booked turned her out on a wet night where she could get no accommodation or conveyance, and in consequence she had to walk a distance of four miles to her home, whereby she took a cold and was laid up, and incurred expense in getting cured, and was hindered in her business, she was held entitled to recover damages for the inconvenience suffered in consequence of being obliged to walk home, but not for the other consequences just mentioned, they being regarded as too remote. (Hobbs v. London & South Western Rail. Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 111.)

With regard to personal injuries or death of a passenger caused by the negligence of carriers besides other damages, the plaintiff can recover in proportion to the average income of the person injured or killed at the time of the accident. See “ Negligence,” and “ Executors and Admini.

strators." Contribu- Defences.]-Denial of negligence is one of the most usual defences tory negli. set up in actions against passenger carriers, and in the large class of gence. cases where injuries are caused by railway collisions or trains running

off the lines or the like, is as a rule the only available defence. But where an action is brought in the case of isolated accidents, as where a passenger steps out of a railway carriage, on its stopping a short distance behind or beyond the platform in consequence of the train being pulled up too soon or its "over-shooting " the platform, the defence contributory negligence is generally set up together with the denial of the negligence. These defences will be found noticed under the head of

negligence. Defence in With regard to the loss of luggage it is a good defence that the owner case of lug. thereof has specially undertaken to watch it. (Brind v. Dale, 2 M. & W.

775.) It is also a good defence in such cases that the loss was occasioned passenger by the passenger's negligence. (Talley v. Great Western Rail, Co.. took it supra.) But where carriers provide servants to assist passengers to under his remove their luggage on arrival, the liability of the carriers continues

until the servants have done their duty, such as placing the luggage in a cab. (Richards v. London, Brighton, & South Coast Rail. Co., 7 C. B.

839; Butcher v. London & South Western Rail. Co., 24 L. J. C. P. 137. Luggage See also Patscheider v. Great Western Rail Co., 38 L. J. N. S. 149.) deposited Where articles are deposited in the cloak-room at a railway station in cloak” and a ticket is given, on which is printed “see back," and on the back is

an intimation that the company will not be responsible for any package

gage that

Own care.

room.

pers of cod, as alleged in the statement of claim. Messrs. Defence to F. & M., of B., did deliver to the defendant, on the evening of action

against the 2nd of February, 1875, six hampers of cod, to be by them common safely and securely carried and delivered to the plaintiffs carrier for

loss and at M.

delay. 2. The defendants deny the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim.

3. The defendants say that on the morning of the 4th of February, 1875, they delivered the said six hampers of cod to the plaintiff, and deny that they failed to deliver the same within a reasonable time.

4. The defendants do not admit the 5th paragraph of the statement of claim.

Action for injury to Goods during transit. 1. The defendants are common carriers of goods. 2. On or about the 1st of May, 1875, the plaintiff delivered Against

carrier for to the defendants, and the defendants, as such common carriers, injury to received from the plaintiff two packages of glass, to be by goods. them safely and securely carried from N. to M., for reward in that behalf.

3. On the arrival of the said packages of glass at M., they

exceeding the value of £10, in an action for over £10, the jury found Effect of that the plaintiff neither read nor knew the condition, and that he was conditions not guilty of negligence in not so reading or knowing. It was held that printed on the defendants' liability was established by these findings, the con- tickets tract being one of bailment simply, and that it was necessary for a given on person seeking to impose special terms to show they brought them to the depositing knowledge of the other party. (Parker v. South Eastern Rail. Co., 45 luggage. L. J. C. L. 515.) But see Ilarris v. Great Western Rail. Co., ib., 729, in which it is broadly laid down that if a cloak-room ticket has on the face of it an unequivocal reference to the conditions printed on the back of it, the person taking the ticket is bound by the conditions, whether he has made himself acquainted with them or not. These cases were all examined by the Court of Appeal in Parker v. South Eastern Rail. Co., Decision of and Gabell v. South Eastern Rail. Co. (46 L. J.C.L. 771), where the law

Court of was thus laid down by Mellish, L. J. : “ If the person receiving the

Appeal. ticket did not see or know that there was any writing on the ticket, he is not bound by the conditions ; if he knew there was writing, and knew or believed that the writing contained conditions, then he is bound by the conditions ; if he knew that there was writing on the ticket, but did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions, nevertheless he would be bound if the delivering the ticket to him in such a manner that he could see there was writing upon it, was in the opinion of the jury reasonable notice that the writing contained conditions."

Against carrier for injury to goods.

were found to be completely broken, and, so injured, as to be worthless to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claims £50.

[blocks in formation]

Statement of Defence.-That Carriers' Act not complied with.

1. The two packages of glass mentioned in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the statement of claim were articles and property of the description mentioned in the 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Wm. IV. c. 68, s. 1, and were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants, as and being common carriers by land for hire, at a certain receiving-house of the defendants, for the purpose of being by them, as such carriers, carried for hire, as in the statement of claim mentioned.

2. The value of each of the said packages of glass then exceeded the sum of £10.

3. At the time of the delivery of the said packages as aforesaid, there was affixed, in legible characters, in a public and conspicuous part of the said receiving-house, being a receivinghouse of the defendants, where such parcels were there received by the defendants for the purpose of conveyance, a notice within the meaning of the said statute, whereby the defendants notified that an increased rate of charge in the said notice mentioned was required to be paid to them over and above the ordinary rate of carriage, as compensation for the greater risk and care to be taken for the safe conveyance of articles and property of the description mentioned in the first section of the said statute.

4. At the time of the delivery of the said packages at the said receiving-house of the defendants aforesaid, for the purpose aforesaid, the value and nature of the said goods were not declared by the person sending or delivering the same, and neither such increased charge as aforesaid was paid, nor any engagement to pay the same was accepted by the person receiving the said packages.

5. The defendants do not admit the allegations contained in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim.

For Non-carriage and Loss and Conversion of Goods. 1. The plaintiffs are merchants, carrying on business in the Against City of London. The defendant is a carrier, also carrying on

carrier for

loss of business in the City of London.

goods and 2. Before the grievances hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff's alterna

tively for had contracted to sell a case of gloves to Messrs. H., of M., their conand two cases of gloves to Messrs. C., of M.

version. 3. The plaintiffs delivered to the defendant the said three cases of gloves, directed to the said Messrs. H. and the said Messrs. C. respectively, to be carried by him, as common carrier, for reward, to the West India Dock, for shipment to the consignees, per ship “C."

4. The defendant did not deliver the said goods at the West India Dock. While the said goods were in the custody of the defendant or his servants, the said goods were, by the defendant's servants, or by some persons unknown, feloniously stolen. The cases were unpacked, and their contents abstracted, and the cases were re-filled with rubbish, and re-packed in such a manner that the theft could not be detected from their exterior appearance. They were in this state delivered by the defendant at the docks, and were there shipped to the consignees.

5. By reason of the conversion by the defendant of the said goods, and his default in carrying the same, the plaintiffs have lost the value of the said goods. They are also liable to repay to the consignees the freight and charges incident to the shipment of the cases.

The plaintiffs claim :-
(1.) £311, the value of the said goods.
(2.) Or alternatively the said sum for damages for the con-

version.
(3.) £5, the amount of the said freight and charges.

Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant says he is a carman, and not a common Defence. carrier, and he only carries the goods of his employers when, where, or as it is in each case specially agreed by him.

2. The defendant, as such carman, and not as a common carrier, at the plaintiffs' request, received three cases of goods, to be conveyed to the West India Docks, for shipment, one case

« 上一頁繼續 »