Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Margaret Isabella Fraser, 12 William Street, Forebank, Dundee, raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Dundee against the Caledonian Railway Company for damages for personal injuries sustained by her.

The pursuer averred—“(Cond. 2) On the 14th day of October 1901 the pursuer entered Buchanan Street Railway Station, Glasgow, with the intention of proceeding to Dundee by the 9.30 p.m. train. The platform of the station was much overcrowded, but notwithstanding the pursuer and others were permitted to enter, and there was such pressure behind her that the pursuer was carried along and hurled from the platform on to the railroad, in consequence of which she was severely injured, her side being much bruised and her clothes destroyed. The defenders or their servants were aware of the overcrowded condition of said platform prior to and at the time of said accident, but they did nothing to prevent the additional influx of persons and pressure above set forth which caused the accident to the pursuer, and they could have and ought to have done so by closing the entrance doors of the station until the platform thereof had been cleared and made safe; and this was a necessary and reasonable precaution in the circumstances, and which if adopted would have prevented said accident. By the failure of the defenders in this and other respects before and after mentioned they failed in their duty to the pursuer and caused said accident to her. (Cond. 4) At the time above stated the platform was unduly crowded, and it was owing to defenders' carelessness or neglect to prevent this overcrowding by the customary method of shutting the gates and refusing admission after the platform had been comfortably filled, or to provide a sufficient staff of servants to cope with such a crowd, that the accident occurred, the pursuer being hurled off the platform as before mentioned by the pressure of persons behind her, who had been admitted by the defenders as before mentioned, as the platform was already overcrowded and incapable of holding the passengers. The defenders created the cause of the accident, and the danger was caused through the failure of the defenders to take the precaution before mentioned. The precautions taken by the defenders on the occasion in question for the protection of the public using the said platform were wholly inadequate, the staff at said station being insufficient in number in view of the number of passengers and the limited accommodation at said station.”

The pursuer pleaded—“(1) The said injuries to the pursuer having been occasioned by failure of the defenders or those for whom they are responsible to take proper precaution for the safety of the public having occasion to use their platform, they are bound in the circumstances to compensate the pursuer for the injuries so received by her.”

The defenders pleaded—“(1) The pursuer's material averments are irrelevant and insufficient in specification.”

On 18th March 1902 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Smith) dismissed the action as irrelevant.

Note.—“I assume it to be true that the defenders' station at Glasgow on the 14th October 1901, being the Dundee Autumn Holiday, was crowded to excess by a mixed mob belonging to Glasgow and to Dundee, and that the pursuer was pushed off the Buchanan Street platform and sustained injury to her clothes and person, but as I cannot conceive what a railway company can do to control or regulate a mixed mob in its movements, more especially to protect one who voluntarily became a member of said mob, I do not feel able to form an intelligible idea of the fault for which this Railway Company can justly be found liable in damages to the pursuer. A legal wrong must be intelligently stated before it can be remitted to probation.”

The pursuer appealed for jury trial, and argued—The action was relevant. Railway companies had the regulation of traffic in their hands, and the defenders could have taken steps which would have prevented the accident to the pursuer. The danger was obvious to the defenders, and it was their duty to take precautions to regulate the movements of the crowd— Macgregor v. Glasgow District Subway Company, July 19, 1901, 3 F. 1131, 38 S.L.R. 480; Hogan v. South-Eastern Railway Company (1873), 28 L.T.R. 271.

Argued for the defenders—There were no circumstances averred from which negligence on the part of the defenders could be inferred. Without such circumstances the mere fact that an accident happened did not expose a railway company to an action of damages. In the present case the defenders had not created the conditions which made the crowd dangerous, and it did not appear from the pursuer's averments whether the accident happened because individuals in the crowd behaved badly or because the defenders admitted a crowd; in either case the action was irrelevant— Cannon v. Midland and Great Western Railway (Ireland) Company (1880), 6 L.R.I.199; Cornman v. Eastern Counties Railway Company (1859), 29 L.J. Exch. 94.

At advising—