Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In this case the pursuer, James Philip, railway goods guard, residing at Burntisland, claims damages from the North British Railway Company, in respect of injuries sustained by him, through the alleged fault of the defenders. The following is the issue sent for trial:—

“It being admitted that the pursuer was a goods guard in the employment of the defenders on or about the 17th day of January last 1865:

Whether, on or about that date, and within or near their station at Tayport, the pursuer sustained severe bodily injury by being crushed between two carriages in consequence of the insufficient length of the buffers, through the fault of the defenders—to his loss, injury, and damage?”

Damages laid at £500 sterling.

It appeared from the evidence that on the morning of the 17th January 1865 the pursuer was employed, along with the other servants of the company, in his duties at Tayport station. A goods train was preparing to start from Tayport to Burntisland. The train had been partly set, and another waggon was being brought up from behind, by the engine drawing it a certain length, and then throwing it off. The pursuer, whose duty it was to couple the carriages before the departure of the train, was standing behind the last waggon which had been placed on the line, when the other waggon—which was laden with flax, part of which projected over the sides—came up from behind and inflicted the injury complained of. The pursuer's left collar-bone was broken, and he was otherwise crushed in the upper part of his body. The buffers of the two waggons were about eleven inches in length. They had originally been 12-inch buffers, but had been worn away by wear; and on either end of the waggons were upright beam or standards to prevent the ends from giving way. It also appeared in evidence that at the place where the accident occurred there was a slight incline in the ground, but not such as to prevent a waggon standing still if brought up in the proper way.

On behalf of the pursuer it was contended that there was here no seen danger from which he could have protected himself; that at the time when the accident occurred he was engaged in doing only what he had done repeatedly for the last five years; that he was not violating any printed rule of the company by coupling the waggons when one of them was in motion; and that the accident occurred from the old and dangerous character of the waggons, whose buffers were not only worn away, but whose ends were patched up by beams to prevent their giving way altogether.

The defenders, whilst admitting that the buffers were not sufficiently long to admit of a man with certain safety coupling two waggons together, one of them being in motion, maintained that there was no legal obligation upon them to provide waggons with buffers of such length that a man might stand against one of them with safety when another is being put up against it; and that therefore no failure of duty could be attributed to then. It the pursuer chose to run the risk of coupling waggons in this way, he had no right to do so at the peril of anybody but himself.