Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action at the instance of Mrs Margaret Gray or Mathieson, wife of Walter Mathieson, police constable, Blythbridge, Dolphinton, with the consent and concurrence of her husband, against the Caledonian Railway Company. The pursuer sought to recover damages for loss, injury, and damage alleged to have been sustained by her through the fault of the defenders.

The pursuer averred that on 13th December 1901 she had occasion to travel from Dolphinton to Glasgow, and that she entered an afternoon train on the defenders' line of railway at Dolphinton Station. “(Cond. 3) On said date a severe snowstorm occurred, and the train in which the pursuer travelled was snowed up between the stations of Dunsyre and Newbigging. The windows of the compartment in which the pursuer was were covered with snow, and she was unable to see outside. She attempted to lower both windows of the compartment in turn, but they were immoveable by reason of the severe frost, and the pursuer was thus unable to open them. There was no handle for opening the door of the carriage from the inside, and the pursuer was, in these circumstances, unable to get out therefrom. (Cond. 4) The defenders' officials on the said train left the pursuer uncared for and unattended for more than an hour. By that time she was so exhausted and benumbed with cold that she fell from the seat of the compartment to the floor. She was unable to speak, but at last she succeeded in attracting the attention of one of the defenders' officials. After some delay the line was cleared, and the pursuer was conveyed in a helpless state in the train to Newbigging Station.”

The pursuer also averred that with assistance she reached her destination in Glasgow, where she was medically examined and found to be suffering from a severe shock to her nervous system owing to her exposure to cold. “(Cond. 7) For the pursuer's state of health and the nervous prostration from which she suffers, as well as for the attendant inconvenience and expense to which she has been put, the defenders are responsible. The pursuer's state of health is the direct result of the exposure to extreme cold to which the defenders subjected her on the occasion aforesaid in December 1901. That exposure was due to the fault of the defenders. It was their duty when the train was snowed up to have made all reasonable provision for the comfort and safety of the passengers and to have seen that their needs were duly attended to. The special circumstances required special precautions on the part of the defenders. In point of fact the pursuer has ascertained, and now avers, that the defenders informed the other passengers in the train that they had arranged to take them on to Carstairs by special engine and van, and that the other passengers in the train were so conveyed by the defenders. The pursuer was not, however, informed by the defenders of this arrangement, and in the circumstances condescended upon had no means of ascertaining it for herself. It was the duty of the defenders' officials to have apprised all the passengers in the train, including the pursuer, of the provision

Page: 393↓

made for their safety, and to have given them the opportunity of availing themselves of it. They negligently failed to do this in the pursuer's case, and left her in a position of extreme danger. They did this although the guard of the train, who had seen the pursuer enter the carriage at Dolphinton, and had conversed with her regarding her approaching journey, knew that she was still a passenger in the train. It was the duty of the said guard to have ascertained whether the pursuer had been attended to, and to have made reasonable provision for her safety. This he negligently failed to do. Had the defenders and their servants discharged their duty aforesaid, the pursuer would have escaped injury. Her present condition of ill health is the natural result of the defenders' negligence.”

The defenders pleaded—“(1) The pursuer's averments being irrelevant, the action should be dismissed.”

On 2nd December 1902 the Lord Ordinary ( Kincairney) approved of an issue for the trial of the cause.

The defenders reclaimed, and argued—No definite breach of duty on the part of the defenders was averred. The case was irrelevant.

Argued for the pursuer—The measure of the defenders' duty depended upon circumstances. The pursuer should have had an opportunity of going on to Carstairs along with the other passengers.