There is a case in Ireland, Cannon v. Midland Great Western Railway (Ireland) Company , 6 L.R. (Irish) 199. That was the case of a harvester pushed off a platform by a sudden inrush of people on the platform already filled by a disorderly crowd. The railway company were found not liable, and it was there decided that a railway company is not bound to provide a staff sufficient to cope with the force and violence of a lawless crowd rushing through a station.
Looking at all these judgments, it seems to me that no sufficient case has been made out against the present defenders. It can scarcely be said because there was not an official to call out ‘stand back,’ when the carriages were shunted into the platform, to a group of persons who were all orderly and quiet at the time, that therefore they are guilty of such negligence as to make them liable for the sudden rush of the crowd towards the carriages. In the whole circumstances, therefore, I am of opinion that the defenders are entitled to be assoilzied, with expenses.”
The pursuer appealed, and argued that the Railway Company were liable, as they had permitted a crowd to assemble on their platform and had not provided a staff of persons to control the crowd, or, at any-rate, warn it against rushing forward. Counsel founded on Macgregor v. Glasgow District Subway Company , July 19, 1901, 3 F. 1131, 38 S.L.R. 480; Fraser v. Caledonian Railway Company , November 4, 1902, 5 F. 41, 40 S.L.R. 43; Hogan and Wife v. South-Eastern Railway Company , 1873, 28 L.T. 271.
The defenders argued that the accident was solely due to the fault of the crowd, and that the company had taken all precautions against accident reasonable in the circumstances.
Lord Justice-Clerk —I do not think that any sufficient ground has been shown for interfering with the Sheriff-Substitute's interlocutor here. It is quite certain that it is the duty of the Railway Company to provide as best it can and in a reasonable way for the safety of persons assembled on the platform and wishing to get into a train. It is quite certain also that in fulfilling that duty in a reasonable sense they cannot always be able to control the crowd on the platform. They cannot always, in a large and busy station, be at every spot where a number of people may congregate. Something must be left in these circumstances to the reasonable discretion of the people who are going to get into the train. I am sorry to say that very often that reasonable and moderate discretion is not exercised. Particularly it is not exercised by men. If it were exercised by men there would be no difficulty with women at all. Of course it is very natural that people who have been in Edinburgh all day on an excursion, and who desire to catch the 8.38 train back, should be anxious and take precautions not to be left behind. A practised traveller would have no difficulty about that, because he would insist on being provided with a seat. Still it is a natural impulse which is not sufficiently resisted by some people, to rush at the train if they think there is a crowd who will be able to get in in front of them. Here it is alleged that there was a crowd of 200 people on the platform. I cannot say that I think that was a great or a dangerous crowd, nor can I say that at the time it was assembled there, which was a very considerable time before the train was to start, it was the absolute duty of the Railway Company necessarily to find officials to be at that train. These officials were probably just as much wanted at that moment at some other train which had to start earlier. If they were engaged at their ordinary work in examining trains which were leaving, or just about to leave the station, they could not possibly give the attention which they might have given on an ordinary occasion to a train which was only being made up and was not to start for some time. The two things would have to be worked out to the best of their ability. But it does not seem to me that
Page: 309 ↓
Lord Low —I am of the same opinion. I do not think that fault is proved on the part of the defenders. It seems to me that this was no unusual occasion, and they had no reason to anticipate that there would be any great crowd or any unusual danger to passengers, and it is perfectly plain that there was the ordinary and usual number of officials to look after the safety of passengers connected with this particular train. The accident which the pursuer sustained seems to have been a pure accident for which the defenders are in no way responsible.
Lord Ardwall —I agree. The question is whether fault has been proved against the Railway Company. It appears to me that it is plain upon the evidence that the cause of the accident was the heedlessness and selfishness of the crowd of people, or of individuals composing that crowd, who made a rush for the three empty carriages which were in course of being added to the Bathgate train on the night in question. There was no necessity for such a rush at the time, nor was it to be expected, for some twenty minutes had to elapse before the train was timed to start, and as no complaint was made at the time it is impossible for the Railway Company to prove by their inspectors where they were at the particular moment of the accident. I agree with the Sheriff that it is proved that there was a sufficient staff for all ordinary purposes. Further, it is I think proved that the Railway Company did not allow an unreasonable number of people to get on to this platform. They had taken the very proper precaution of allowing nobody to go on to it except through the gates where persons were stationed to check the tickets and to prevent too many people getting on to the platform.
I accordingly hold that the pursuer has failed to prove that the accident complained of was due to the fault of the defenders.
Lord Stormonth Darling was absent.
The Court adhered.
Counsel for the Pursuer (Appellant)— Trotter. Agents— Bryson & Grant, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defenders (Respondents)— Scott Dickson, K.C.— Grierson. Agent— James Watson, S.S.C.