Inglis v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co

There is also a minor matter to which I must refer. The defenders founded on a click which was heard when the door flew open, and maintained that it could only be caused by the tongue of the lock as it passed the safety catch position while the handle was held down. Unfortunately for this argument, it was demonstrated to us that a click could be caused by what is called the snib, a part of the mechanism of the lock which is necessarily released when the door flies open, even when the tongue of the lock being wholly disengaged makes no sound like a click.

On the simple issue of fact, I do not find in the evidence anything which satisfies me that the learned Sheriff-substitute arrived at a wrong conclusion. He had the advantage, denied to us, of seeing the witnesses and of judging of their truthfulness and accuracy, and I accept his decision without reluctance or hesitation, although the issue is debatable and certainty is impossible.

I may say that this transfer of the control of the door to the occupants of a railway carriage during the journey is not, in my view, in any way dependent upon whether an inside handle has or has not been fitted. In all cases in which the carriage door has not actually been locked, I regard the door of each compartment as being under the sole control of the passengers during the journey, even when that door can only be opened by means of an outside handle. The only distinction appears to be that, in this latter case, any act of exercise of control will be more easily observed.

So long as money is to be regarded as the solvent, and having in view the present price of money, I find myself quite unable to affirm as a proposition of law, for all that may have been said in earlier cases, that an award of £300 for solatium against wrongdoers, who are responsible for the death of a child 8 years old, ought in all cases to be regarded as requiring to be reviewed.

LORD CARMONT .—I found this a case of great difficulty. The learned Sheriff-substitute saw the witnesses and heard the evidence, and I agree with the views expressed by your Lordships that his determination should be affirmed.