Pym v The Great Northern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 1212
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Trinity Term, 1861, coram Coc kburn, C .J pym v the (}reat northern railway company (In an action against a railway company foi an mjuiy to a passenger, it is evidence of negligence in the conduc t of the cairymg, that the tiam was tun over a rail known to have been defective and fractured, the jury consideimg that this was the cause of the accident In the case of an injury causing the death of the father of a young family with an ample estate, the question ot fact foi the jury us to damage under Lord Campbell's Act is, whether he might be reasonably expected to have advanced monies out of his estate for their educdtion and advancement in lite Qu&re, as to the law on such a case [Referred to, Readhead v Midland Railway Company L H , 2 Q B. 412 ] This was an action by the administratrix of Francis Pym, deceased The declaration stated that the defendants were carriers of passengers upon a railway, for reward to them, and the said Francis Pym was received by them as a passenger to be by them as such carriers, safely and securely carried upon the said lailway, on a journey from &c , for reward Yet the defendants so negligently conducted themselves in that behalf, and kept their said railway in such an unsafe and improper state and condition, that, by reason thereof, the said Francis Pym, while proceeding on his said journey, was seriously wounded and injured, and afterwaids, and within twelve calendar months next before the suit, died of the wounds and injuries so received by him as aforesaid And the plaintiff as administratrix, for the benefit of herself, as the widow of the said F. Pym, and also for the benefit of (naming eight) children of the said F Pym, sues according to the form of the statute Plea : not guilty [620] Bovill, Lush, and Garth, for the plamtitt Hawkins, Couch, and Holl, for the defendants. On the 23rd April, 1860, Mr. Pym, the deceased, was a passenger by the railway , and, when the train was passing through the Hatfield station, through a siding on the down side, the tram went off the line at a spot where a rail was under repair, on account of some defect in it , and from that cause the injuries ensued, of which he had died The rail was seen to break as the engine went over it, and the carriages then went off the line in different directions, and it appeared that the deceased had been thrown violently out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Victorian Railways Commissioners v Speed
-
Dietz v Lennig Chemicals Ltd
...and direct". If, therefore, there is a trial with a jury it is for the jury to consider how each of the parties is situate. (See Pym v. Great Northern Railway 4 B. & S. 396). In his speech in Avery v. London and North Eastern Railway [1938] A.C. 606 Lord Atkin pointed out (at page 612) tha......
- Public Trustee v Zoanetti
- Lincoln v Gravil