Scottish Court of Session Decisions

On 13th March 1907 John Toal, craneman, 5 North Street, Springburn, Glasgow, raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against the North British Railway Company, to recover £300 as damages for injuries sustained through the alleged fault or negligence of the defenders.

On 17th November 1906 the pursuer was a passenger on the defenders' railway from Falkirk to Glasgow. About six o'clock p.m. on that day, when the train arrived and stopped at College Street Station, Glasgow, the pursuer alighted, and while standing on the platform was struck and knocked down, on the re-starting of the train, by the open door of one of the railway carriages. After the train had passed the pursuer fell upon the rails and sustained the injuries in respect of which he sought damages.

The pursuer averred—“When said train was stopped at said platform there were no porters or officials on the platform to see that the doors of the carriages were closed before the train was re-started. It is the duty of defenders, and is the invariable practice of railway companies, to close the doors of compartments before a train is allowed to leave the station, but this the defenders and their servants culpably and negligently failed to do on the occasion of this accident to pursuer. The defenders and their said servants were also negligent in respect that they set said train in motion without closing said door.”

On 24th July 1907 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Boyd) closed the record and allowed a proof before answer.

The pursuer appealed for jury trial. The defenders objected to the relevancy, and the case went to the summar roll.

Argued for the defenders and respondents—The action was irrelevant and should be dismissed. There was no issuable matter, for there was no relevant averment of negligence. There was no duty on the defenders to see that every carriage door was closed. But if there was a duty to see that the carriage doors were closed, it was to close the carriage doors before the train left the station, not to do so before the train was set in motion. In any case the fault alleged as to the doors did not directly conduce to the accident, and the pursuer's own case disclosed contributory negligence on his part, viz., that he remained within reach of the door when the train re-started.

Argued for the pursuer and appellant—The action was relevant, and issues should be ordered. The open door was the direct cause of the accident. The platform was provided for the passengers, and re-starting the train with the doors open constituted a danger to the passengers on the platform, and amounted to negligence rendering the defenders liable in damages. That was averred on record. There was a duty on the company's servants to close carriage doors— Metropolitan Railway Company v. Jackson, 1877, 3 App. Cas. 193, Lord Cairns at p. 198. The defenders made no averment as to the time elapsing between the pursuer's leaving the train and its being afresh set in motion, so the matter of contributory negligence could not be dealt with de piano on the averments. The onus was on the defenders to aver and prove contributory negligence— Wakelin v. London and South-Western Railway Company, 1887, 12 App. Cas. 41, Lord Watson at p. 47—and that question was one suitable for the jury.