Judgment:
Lord President—My Lords, the circumstances of this case are somewhat peculiar, and raise a question of some novelty and importance. The verdict of the jury is challenged on two grounds, (1) that there is no evidence of fault on the part of the defenders, and (2) that assuming fault on their part, that there was contributory fault on the part of the pursuer. On the 19th December 1873 there was a block on the line, caused by an accident which is not attributed to any fault on the part of the railway company, but which produced great disturbance of the traffic. I am not disposed to hold that the block disabled the company from carrying on their passenger traffic. I think it would be dangerous and inconvenient to hold that the company was not entitled, or I might even say bound, to carry it on, for its entire cessation would cause great public loss, but it is quite obvious that they would have to carry it on at great risk, and that implies the necessity of unusual care. It seems to me, in the first place, that if the company started a train from Glasgow to Greenock, they were bound to let intending passengers know the extra risk attending the journey, a risk necessarily connected with getting out of one train at a place where there was neither station nor platform, walking along the line, and getting into another train. There must be considerable risk in that, and many people necessarily travel by railway who are very ill-fitted to encounter that risk, and most of them, if they were sensible of weakness, would probably decline to encounter it. I think it was the duty of the company in the first place to make the passengers aware that they were not starting on an ordinary railway journey from Glasgow to Greenock, but on one which was unusual and dangerous. Now, it is proved by Mrs Jarvie and the porter that she was not made aware of it. I do not say that the porter represented that the line was clear, but it is quite plain that he did not inform her that it was blocked. The line, however, was blocked, and there was extra risk in passing from one train to the other. Mrs Jarvie says that if she had known this she would not have gone, and it is proved that she had the option of staying with her sister. Now, I think that failure to give information was negligence on the part of the company which exposed Mrs Jarvie to unusual and quite unnecessary risk. It seems to me, further, that if it is proved that in encountering that risk Mrs Jarvie was injured, the company must be held responsible, because, but for their failure, she would not have been there at all. There was another duty incumbent on the company, and that was, at the place where the block took place, to use all means in their power to insure the safety of the passengers in going from one train to another. It was dangerous to get out and in at a place where there was no platform, especially for women and old people, and so the company was bound to give assistance, but so far as that is concerned I do not think the verdict wrong. The case depends then on the evidence of the pursuer. There are no witnesses or circumstances corroborating her testimony as to the invitation to jump, and the jump was made. The presiding Judge was not asked to direct the Jury that the evidence of one witness was insufficient. It is not every fact that requires two witnesses to prove it. Again, it may be doubted whether there was anything so far wrong in the porter's advice. The place was dark, the lights not steady, and to get out of the carriage was necessarily attended with risk, and it may be a question whether it was safer to jump or to try to climb down. It might have raised a different question if the former had been necessary. The ground on which I hold that there was fault on the defenders' part was their failure to give the pursuer warning of her risk. It has been said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the pursuer, but unless the jump was a great mistake there could be no contributory negligence; but it is not necessary to enter into that question, for the only evidence on that point is the pursuer's own statement, and it will not do to extract from that the one fact that she did jump, without taking the whole facts together. I am satisfied that no case has been made out for challenging the verdict of the jury.
