Montgomery v North British Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1878 |
| Docket Number | No. 135. |
| Date | 16 May 1878 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President, Lord Deas, Lord Mure, Lord Shand.
Railway—Doctor's Fees—Principal and Agent.—
Held that a station-master had no authority to bind a railway company to pay for medical attendance, upon a guard injured on the railway, beyond the first visit, for which he had express authority from the company.
William Manson, a goods guard in the service of the North British Railway Company, met with a severe injury to his foot while engaged in shunting waggons at Ayton Station on 21st March 1876. Dr Montgomery, a surgeon residing at Ayton, was sent for by the defenders' station-agent. He attended to Manson's injuries, and accompanied him to his lodgings at Berwick (a distance of 8 miles) by train. He continued his visits until Manson's recovery, being permitted by the servants of the company to travel without a ticket, and brought this action in the Sheriff Court against the railway company for payment of an account of £44, 14s., being £3, 3s. for the first attendance, seventy-five visits at 10s. 6d. each, and £2, 3s. 6d. for medicines and appliances.
The company admitted liability for the first item only.
On a proof the above facts were established. Manson and a fellow-lodger deponed that the latter told the pursuer two or three days after the accident that Manson, as a member of the Society of Oddfellows, was entitled to ‘a free doctor’ from them, and that the defenders would not pay for more than the first visit. This was denied by the pursuer, though not quite distinctly.* The defenders proved their regulations on this subject furnished to their servants.†
The Sheriff-substitute (Dickson) decerned against the defenders for the admitted sum of £3, 3s., and quoad ultra assoilzied them.
On appeal the Sheriff (Pattison) recalled this interlocutor, and decerned against the defenders for the sum sued for.
They appealed to the Court of Session.
Argued for them;—The company were not liable to provide medical attendance for a prolonged period for their servant. Their station-agent had no authority to employ the pursuer except for one visit, and no act of his could make them liable.1 Besides, the pursuer was made aware that the company would pay for only one visit.
Argued for the pursuer;—Under the company's regulations the station-agent was entitled to begin the employment. The employment having been properly begun on that footing, the pursuer was never informed that it had terminated, or that there was any limit of the nature contained in the rule.
At advising,—
Lord President.—This is a case of some importance, but it appears to me to be also very clear. I think the Sheriff-substitute's judgment is perfectly sound, though I am not quite prepared to adopt the view which he suggests in his note, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial