網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Statement
of defence
to claim
for injuries
through
falling of a
defective
lamp.

servants or agents, and that they or either of them were guilty of any negligence or default whatever in relation to the plaintiff.

3. The defendants say that the giving way and falling of the said globe or shade were wholly unavoidable and unexpected, and the result of mere accident, and were occasioned by latent defects in the said lamp or globe, and in the burner and fittings thereof, and also by the said burner getting suddenly and accidentally choked and out of order during the said journey, and by the solder by which the said globe was attached to the said lamp becoming melted by the flame from the said burner and giving way, or by some or one of such causes. The defendants further say that the said giving way and falling of the globe and the alleged injuries resulting therefrom happened notwithstanding all reasonable care and precaution haring been taken by the defendants to prevent danger and injury to the plaintiff, and to secure his safety while travelling on the said journey.

4. The defendants do not admit any of the allegations in the 4th paragraph of the statement of claim.

Claim against railway company for personal injury through negligence in overshooting platform

Action against a Railway Company for Injury caused by Train

being brought up beyond Platform (a). 1. The plaintiff is a mantle manufacturer carrying on business with his brother under the style of F. Brothers, at

Street, Cheapside, in the city of London. 2. The plaintiff, on the 15th of August, 1877, purchased from the defendants at their Aldersgate Street Station a ticket entitling him to be carried from the said station to the Finsbury Park Station, and he was received by the defendants as a passenger to be carried on and in the 11.45 p.m. train from Aldersgate Street station, to Finsbury Park station.

3. When the said train was brought up to a final standstill for the purpose of the passengers alighting at the Finsbury Park Station, the carriage in which the plaintiff had travelled was negligently brought up without the knowledge of the plaintiff beyond the end of the platform of the said station.

4. No warning was given to the plaintiff of the danger of

(a) For note as to liability of railway companies, who are common carriers, for negligence causing injury to passengers, see ante, p. 262-3.

for per

attempting to alight from the carriage at its then position. Claim

against When a reasonable time had elapsed after the train had been railway brought to a standstill, the plaintiff, using ordinary and rea- company sonable care in that behalf, attempted to alight from the said sonal incarriage, but by reason of the said carriage being beyond the jury

through platform, fell and was bruised, cut and injured.

negligence 5. By reason of the premises the plaintiff was confined to in over

shooting his bed for five weeks, and has been since the receiving of the

platform said injuries and still is unable to attend his said business.

6. The plaintiff has incurred liabilities for medical attendance amounting to about £100, and has suffered great pain, loss, and inconvenience, and will be a long time in recovering and getting cured of the said injuries, and will be thereby put to much extra expense.

The plaintiff claims - damages.

Statement of Defence. 1. The defendants do not admit that the plaintiff carries Statement on the alleged business, and that he has sustained the alleged

of defence business loss, or any part thereof.

2. The said train did overshoot the platform as alleged, but the said overshooting of the platform was not due to any negligence or want of care of the defendants or their servants, or to any negligence in the management of the said train.

3. The defendants do not admit that the said train was brought to a final standstill. Their servants were ready to back the train to the platform, and would have done so if the plaintiff had requested them to do so, or if he had given them any opportunity of seeing that he was desirous of getting out, or was about to get out. He did not wait for or request the train to Contribube so backed, or give any opportunity to take him back in the tory neglitrain to the platform ; but he jumped or got out at once and without waiting a reasonable time before attempting to alight or before alighting from the said carriage. In acting as above stated, the plaintiff acted negligently and carelessly, and he did not, as is alleged in the statement of claim, use ordinary or reasonable care in alighting or attempting to alight, but he got out or jumped out hastily and negligently.

4. It was in consequence of the plaintiff so getting out hastily that the servants of the defendants did not observe

gence.

Statement him in time to prevent him from getting out, and in time to -contribu- back the train to the platform before he got out ; and the said tory negli. servants were not guilty of any negligence, even if (which the gence.

defendants do not admit) no warning was given to the plaintiff as alleged in the statement of claim.

5. One of the defendants' servants, when the train overshot the platform, and before the plaintiff got out, called to warn the passengers to keep their seats. The plaintiff heard this warning, or, if he did not, the said servant did all he reasonably could to give this warning to the plaintiff.

6. The above conduct, negligence, and want of care and caution of the plaintiff caused the injuries of which he complains, or directly contributed thereto.

7. The defendants do not admit the allegations contained in the 6th and 7th paragraphs of the statement of claim.

[For claim by administratrir for negligence causing death of the intestate and depreciation of his personal estate, see ante, p. 320–1.]

Claim for injuries through collision caused by negligence.

Claim for Injuries caused by Railway Accident. 1. The plaintiff is a jeweller and silversmith carrying on business at in the county of and the defendants are the M., S. and L. Railway Company.

2. The defendants are carriers of passengers between (among other places) F. and G. Docks.

3. On the 11th April, 1876, the plaintiff took and paid for a ticket from F. to G. Docks, and was received by the defendants as a passenger by a train leaving F. at or about 6.35 p.m., to be safely carried by the said train to G. Docks.

4. Shortly after the said train by which the plaintiff was travelling had left F., it overtook, and by the negligence of the defendants' servants came violently into collision with, another train of the defendants travelling on the same line of rails.

5. By the force of the collision the plaintiff was thrown from his seat and seriously injured.

6. In consequence of the injuries so received, and the illness caused thereby, the plaintiff has been unable to attend to his business up to the present time, and has been put to great expense in providing other persons to manage his said business, and has lost large profits which but for his said injuries

preventing him from personally attending to his said business, he would have made. He has also incurred large expenses in medical attendance, nursing, and otherwise during his illness.

The plaintiff claims £1000.

Action against Railway Company for Injuries by Collision

caused through Negligence. 1. The defendants are carriers of passengers upon a railway Claim

against from Victoria station, London, to Balham.

railway 2. In January, 1876, the plaintiff was received by the defen- company

for injuries. dants as a second-class passenger holding a season ticket, to be by them safely and securely carried for reward in an express train which started from Victoria station for Balham.

3. Owing to the negligence of the defendants in the management of their railway line and of the trains and engines running thereon, the express train in which the plaintiff was travelling from Victoria station to Balham aforesaid ran into or otherwise came into collision with an engine at a short distance from Victoria station.

4. The plaintiff was thrown from his seat by the said collision, and much injured about the head and face, and had his left arm broken.

The plaintiff claims :

Action for Injury caused by Negligence of Defendants'

Servants. 1. On the evening of November 6th, 1875, the plaintiff was Another

claim lawfully proceeding by the usual path to enter the station of

against a the defendants, at I., in the county of Derby, for the purpose railway taking his ticket and proceeding by a train of the defendants company

for personal then about to start.

injuries. 2. In order to reach the defendants' offices and platform it was necessary for him to cross a certain unprotected siding of the defendants.

3. While the plaintiff was so crossing the said siding he was knocked down by an engine in charge of the defendants' servants. His arm and leg were cut off, and he was otherwise grievously injured.

4. No warning or signal of the approach of the said engine was given. It carried no lights, and by reason of the darkness

of the evening the plaintiff was unable to see his danger ; and
the injuries aforesaid were caused by the negligence of the
defendants herein.
The plaintiff claims £1000 damages.

Statement of Defence. Defence to 1. The defendants do not admit that the plaintiff was proclaim for

ceeding by the usual path to enter their station, or that it was personal injuries. necessary

for him to cross the said siding in order to reach their offices and platform as alleged in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the statement of claim.

2. The defendants do not admit that no warning or signal of the approach of the said engine was given, or that the said engine carried no lights, or that by reason of the darkness the plaintiff was unable to see his danger as alleged in the 4th paragraph.

3. The plaintiff might and ought to have proceeded by another way to the defendants' offices and platform. If he had gone by the said other way he would not have run any risk of being injured by the said engine.

4. The said engine was proceeding cautiously at a very slow pace not exceeding two miles an hour, and carried lights in front, and immediately before its arrival at the said path by which the plaintiff was crossing the said siding, the whistle was. sounded, and some of the servants shouted to the plaintiff to stand clear.

5. The plaintiff might by the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care and caution have avoided all injury from the said engine. Action under Lord Campbell's Act by an Executor of Person

killed by Negligence of the Defendants (a). Claim by 1. The plaintiffs are the executors of A. B., deceased, and the executor for injuries

defendants are the Great Western Railway Company, and were causing at the time of the grievances hereinafter complained of carriers death under Lord

of passengers upon a railway from London to Richmond. Campbell's 2. The said A. B. in his lifetime became and was received Act.

by the defendants as a passenger to be safely and securely carried by them as such carriers from London to Richmond for reward.

3. The defendants did not safely and securely carry the said

(a) As to when a person may sue under this statute, see the notes ante, p. 464.

« 上一頁繼續 »