Bilbee v The London, Brighton, and South Cost Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1865 |
| Date | 09 May 1865 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 144 E.R. 571
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 34 L. J. C. P. 182; 13 L. T. 146; 13 W. R. 779; 11 Jur. N. S. 745. Considered, Stubley v. London and North Western Railway, 1865, L R. 1 Ex. 13. Followed, Stapley v. London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, 1865, L. R. 1 Ex. 21. Referred to, Skelton v. London and North Western Railway, 1867, L. R. 2 C. P. 631. Commented on and explained, Cliff v. Midland Railway, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B. 258. Referred to, Clarke v. Midland Railway, 1880, 43 L. T. 382.
bclbee v. the london, brighton, and south coast railway company. May 9th, 1865. [S. C. 34 L. J. C. P. 182; 13 L. T. 146; 13 W. R. 779; 11 -lur. N. S. 745. Considered, Stubley v. London and North Jl^estern Railway, 1865, L. R. 1 Ex. 13. Followed, Stapley v. London, Brighton anil Soidh Coast Railway, 1865, L. R. 1 Ex. 21. Referred to, SkeUon v. London and North WeMern Railway, 1867, L. R. 2 C. P. G31. Gommentejd on and explained, Cliff v. Midland Railway, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B. 258. Referred to, Clarke v. Midland Railway, 1S80, 43 L. T. 382.] 1. Quare, as to the extent of the obligation of a, railway company to place guards at level crossings?-2. A railway crossed on a level a public carriage and footway at 57J2 BILBEE V. THE BRIGHTON RAILWAY CO. 18 0. B. (K. 8.) W5. a spot whicih, from the fact of there being a considerable curve in the line, and a bridge near, trains coming in one direction were not seen until very close, was peculiarly dangerous. There were gates across the carriage-way which were kept locked; but the footway was protected only by a swing-gate on either side, no person beiig there to caution people passing. The plaintiff while using the footway was knocked down by a passing train, and injured:-Held, that it was properly left to the jury to say whether or not the company had been guilty of negligence. This waa an action against the London, Brighton, and South Coast Kailway Company, foe negligence. The first count of the declaration stated that, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, the defendants were the proprietors of a railroad which crossed a highway for carts and carriages on a level, yet that the defendants did not employ any guard or proper person or persons, or any person whatever, to open and shut the gates next to the said highway, so that persons passing along the said highway should not be exposed to danger or damage by the passing of carriages and engines along the said railroad, nor did they take due or proper care of the said crossing or for the protection of persons using the same, but therein wholly fulled and made default, contrary to the form of the statutes in such case made: by means of which premises, and of the neglect and default of the defendants in that befaalf, the plaintiff, who was then lawfully using the [585] said highway where the said railroad crossed the same, was knocked down by an engine and carriages passing along the said railroad, and his arm was broken, and he was otherwise bruised, wounded, and injured, and became arid was sick, and so continued for a long time, and was put to expense, and disabled from earning his living as a brick-maker, or otherwise, and was and is otherwise injured. The second count stated that, before and at the time of committing the grievances thereinafter mentioned, the defendants were possessed of a locomotive engine and train of carriages, which were then under the care, management, and direction of certain servants of the defendants, who were then driving the same across a highway ; nevertheless, the defendants, by their said servants, so carelessly, negligently, and improperly drove, governed, and directed their said engine and carriages that, by and through the mere carelessness, negligence, and improper conduct of the defendants by their said servants in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendrie v Caledonian Railway Company
...Q. B. D. 213; M'Kenzie v. Magistrates of MusselburghSC, July 2, 1901, 3 F. 1023. 3 1867, L. R., 2 C. P. 631. 4 L. R., 5 Q. B. 258. 5 18 C. B. (N. S.) 584. 1 L. R., 5 Q. B. 2 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 213. ...
-
Patchell v The Irish North-Western Railway Company
...Eastern Railway Co.ELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 549. Daniel v. Metropoiltan Railway Co.ELR L. R. 3 C. P. 591. Bibee v. The Brighton Railway Co.ENR 18 C. B. N. S. 584. Stubley v. The London and North Western Railway Co.ELR L. R. 1 Ex. 13. Cumberton v. The Irish North Western Railway Co.UNKIR I. R. 3 C.......
-
Grant v Caledonian Railway Company
...Railway Company, 1858, 1 Foster and Finlason, 361; Bilbee v. London and Brighton Railway Company, May 9, 1865, 34 L. J., C. P., 182, 18 C. B., N. S., 584; Stubley v. London and North-Western Railway Company, 35 L. J., Ex., 3, 1 L. R., Ex., 13; Stapley v. London and Brighton Railway Company,......