Scottish Court of Session Decisions

John M'Aulay, mason, Crosslee, Johnstone, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow, against the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company, in which he sought damages for certain injuries sustained by him.

He averred—“(Cond. 2) On 15th January 1896 the pursuer was a passenger in a third-class carriage from Johnstone to Elderslie by the workmen's train leaving Johnstone at twenty-four minutes past five o'clock in the morning, and had duly paid his fare. (Cond. 3) The station at Elderslie is not lighted at all by the Railway Company, and when some yards from the platform of that station the train stopped, but at that time it had not reached the said platform. (Cond. 4) About 300 yards before entering the station platform, and in a line with, up to, and abutting the coping of the platform, is a parapet wall which reaches to the footboard of the carriage, and resembles the station platform, although it is narrow. (Cond. 5) On the train stopping, the pursuer in the darkness stepped out on to the parapet wall, where there is a bridge over the Glasgow, Paisley, and Johnstone Canal, thinking it to be the station platform owing to the darkness, and the fact that the defenders systematically were in the habit of leaving Elderslie Station unlit, the pursuer, along with other passengers, believed, and was justified in believing, that the train had arrived at the station platform. (Cond. 6) When he discovered where he was, he turned round to re-enter the carriage, but the train started suddenly and without any previous warning, and the pursuer was precipitated over the parapet on to the ground, a distance of 10 feet. He was rendered unconscious by the fall, and lay there for several hours, when he was taken to the Paisley Infirmary, where he remained till 19th February. In consequence of said accident defenders now light the station in the morning.”

The defenders pleaded, inter alia— (1) The pursuer's statements are irrelevant.

On 29th May 1896 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Balfour) allowed a proof before answer.

The pursuer appealed to the Court of Session for jury trial, and lodged an issue for the trial of the cause.

The defenders objected to the relevancy of the action, and argued—The pursuer had stated no reasonable ground for supposing that he was at the station. The fault alleged was failure to light, but if the station had been lighted on the morning in question, that would not have prevented the accident to the pursuer. There was nothing here which could be construed into an invitation to alight as there was in all the cases quoted for the pursuer. A failure to light a station properly was not an invitation to get out at any point on the line where a train might stop. Of the two things which the pursuer said induced him to get out, the failure to light had nothing to do with the accident, and the existence of the parapet wall was not a fault on the part of the company.

Argued for the pursuer—If a railway company brought a train to a standstill in such circumstances as to induce a passenger reasonably, but erroneously, to suppose that

Page: 667↓

he was at a station, then they were liable for any injury sustained by the passenger as the result of his having got out of the train— Siner v. Great Western Railway Company, February 9, 1869, L.R., 4 Ex. 117, per Hannen, J., at page 124; Whittaker v. Manchester and Sheffield Railway Company, L.R., 5 C.P. 464, note (3) per Willes, J., at page 465, note. See also Cockle v. London and South-Eastern Railway Company, May 10, 1870, L.R., 5 C.P. 457; and Petty v. Great Western Railway Company, L.R. 5 C.P. 461, note (1). Bridges v. North London Railway Company, L.R., 5 C.P. 459, note (5), referred to by Willes, J., in Whittaker cit., was reversed, June 22, 1874, L.R., 7 H. of L. 213. Here it was averred that the pursuer believed and was justified in believing that he was at the station (1) because the defenders were in the habit of leaving Elderslie Station unlighted, and (2) because of the resemblance of the top of the wall to a station platform. The averment of habitual failure to light, was a relevant averment of fault against the Railway Company, because but for such habitual failure the pursuer would not have got out when he did. This case was ruled by Whittaker cit. The only distinction between that case and the present was that here there was no calling out of the name of the station by the porters. That element was not of vital importance. It was absent also in the cases of Roe v. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company, November 9, 1889, 17 R. 59; and Aitken v. North British Railway Company, May 22, 1891, 18 R. 836.