Thompson v London, Midland & Scottish Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1930 |
| Year | 1930 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Railway - Negligence - Accident to Railway Passenger - Negligence of Railway Company - Damages - Excursion Ticket - Special Contract - Condition negativing Company's Liability - Passenger unable to read - Reasonable Notice of Condition.
The plaintiff, who could not read, had an excursion ticket taken for her by her niece on the face of which were printed the words: “Excursion. For conditions see back”; and on the back was a notice that the ticket was issued subject to the conditions in the defendant company's time tables and excursion bills. On the excursion bills excursion tickets were stated to be issued subject to the conditions shown in the company's current time tables. The time tables, which could be obtained for sixpence each, stated: “Excursion tickets …. are issued subject to the general regulations and to the condition that the holders …. shall have no rights of action against the company …. in respect of …. injury (fatal or otherwise) …. however caused.” A special jury found that an accident to the plaintiff on the journey covered by the excursion ticket was due to negligence on the part of the defendant company. To prevent the case going back for a new trial, the jury were asked whether the defendant company took reasonable steps to bring the conditions to the notice of the plaintiff and answered “No,” and awarded damages. Argument was then allowed whether the jury could so find, and it was held that as a matter of law when the ticket was accepted the contract was complete, and therefore there was no evidence on which the jury could find as they did:—
Held, that the fact that the plaintiff could not read did not alter the legal position; that she was bound by the special contract made on the excursion ticket on the acceptance of the ticket; and that the indication of the special conditions by reference to the time tables was sufficient notice of their existence and contents.
Held, also, that the question put to the jury for the sake of convenience as to reasonable notice must be determined upon the law applicable to the conditions upon which the ticket was issued, and that those conditions negatived the right of the plaintiff to recover damages.
APPEAL from Mr. Commissioner Sir W. F. Kyffin Taylor sitting at Manchester with a special jury.
The action was brought by Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Thompson against the defendant company for damages in respect of injuries sustained by her through alleged negligence of the defendant company's servants.
The following statement of facts is taken from the judgment of the Master of the Rolls:—
“Mrs. Thompson went with two other persons, the two other persons being her daughter and her niece, a Miss Aldcroft, on January 21, 1928, to the railway station, and she was a passenger on a train from Manchester to Darwen, the train reaching Darwen at about 10 P.M. at night. When the train arrived at Darwen station it apparently was too long to be accommodated at the platform, with the result that it had to pull up a second time. The plaintiff was told not to get out at the first stopping of the train. Then the train drew up a second time, and when it reached the platform it reached that part of it right at the end of the platform where the ramp begins, and in stepping out on to the platform she slipped and suffered the injuries which are set out in the statement of claim. The action is brought and is based on the negligence of the defendants in the course of carrying the plaintiff to her destination — Darwen from Manchester. The defendants rely upon the conditions of the contract under which they undertook to convey the plaintiff from Manchester to Darwen, and the particulars say this: The ticket issued to the plaintiff by the defendants for the said journey was an excursion ticket and on the face of the said ticket were printed (inter alia) the words ‘Excursion, For conditions see back,’ and on the back of the said ticket were printed (inter alia) the words ‘Issued subject to the conditions and regulations in the company's time tables and notices and excursion and other bills.’ On the excursion bill of the said company were printed (inter alia), the words ‘Excursion tickets are issued subject to the notices and conditions shown in the company's current time tables.’ In the company's time table were printed (inter alia) the words ‘Excursion tickets and tickets issued at fares less than the ordinary fares are issued subject to the general regulations and conditions and also the condition that neither the holders nor any other person shall have any right of action against the company …. in respect of …. injury (fatal or otherwise) loss, damage or delay however caused.’
“There is no dispute that this lady was travelling by an excursion train. It is an excursion train which apparently the defendant company run so many times a week during particular periods of the year between Darwen and Manchester and Manchester and Darwen. The excursion train is run on terms of a much lower charge being made to passengers than is charged for the ordinary transit. The excursion trains are not part of their ordinary service of trains — they are trains on special days and special occasions and on special terms as to price. There is some evidence as to how the lady came to travel. She says in her evidence she cannot read; she paid a Miss Aldcroft, who was one of the ladies of the party, the sum which was required, and Miss Aldcroft says this (this is the learned Commissioner's note): ‘I took tickets — three half-day excursions to Manchester 2s. 7d. each’ — that is from Darwen to Manchester and Manchester back to Darwen. Now the price 2s. 7d. each is just one-half of what would be charged as the ordinary fare for that amount of railway travelling between Darwen and Manchester and back again from Manchester to Darwen. She says at that time nothing was said about handbills and nothing about conditions and she saw no handbill, but on cross-examination she says her father had been to see if there were excursion trains, and there is in the evidence (according to the note which has been very sensibly and very fairly agreed between junior counsel in the case) this statement, which does not find its way into the condensed note which is before me, that he had looked and found that there were excursion trains as indicated by some of the bills which were hanging up in the booking hall of the railway company.
“The lady's action was tried before Mr. Commissioner Sir William Francis Kyffin Taylor sitting at Manchester with the assistance of a special jury of Manchester men, and he left certain questions to the jury. The first question that had to be decided was, Whether or not there was any negligence on the part of the defendants? and the second was, What were the damages if they held that the defendants were liable? Then came the question of a special defence which had been argued on the particulars that I have already read. On that issue the learned Commissioner took a course which has been taken before and taken prudently in order to prevent the case going back for a new trial. He says in his summing up to the jury: ‘I want to leave a question to you about this condition …… Did the defendants, the railway company, take reasonable steps to bring the conditions to the notice of the plaintiff? It may be that that question is not necessary, but I think it wiser, in order to save expense and trouble, to get an answer from you at any rate if you would be good enough to bring your minds to bear upon it.’ It is I think quite plain from that introductory sentence that the learned Commissioner left that question not because he was satisfied in his mind that there was evidence which required or justified the question being put, but ex majore cautela so that it might be considered and the answer of the jury considered if it became necessary to do so. The jury in answer to that question replied as follows: they answered No, they had not taken steps, and then they found on the other two questions for the plaintiff, that is, they found negligence and they found damages to the amount of 167 l. 10s. The learned Commissioner at a later date rightly had the legal question arising upon the issue of that condition argued before him and ultimately came to the conclusion that the condition did afford a shield of defence to the railway company, and upon that he entered judgment for the defendants. It is from that judgment for the defendant railway company that the plaintiff appeals.”
The appeal was heard on May 14, 1929.
N. B. Goldie K.C. and B. R. Rice-Jones for the appellant.
Jackson K.C. and W. Gorman for the respondent company.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Company (Gt. Britain) Ltd v Lancashire Batteries Ltd
..."railway ticket" cases. One of those (and I refer to one because it will suffice) was a decision In this Court of Thompson v. London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. There, a passenger had taken an excursion ticket, on the back of which was found a notice that the excursion ticket was......
-
Early v Great Southern Railways Company
...plaintiff's notice the conditions upon which he was accepted as a passenger; Thompson v. London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co.ELR, [1930] 1 K. B. 41, applied: 3, accordingly, since the plaintiff was travelling from F. to C. subject to the special conditions of his excursion ticket, and a......
- Leong Kum Whay v QBE Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd
-
George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd
...clauses or understand them. 26 It was a bleak winter for our law of contract. It is illustrated by two cases, Thompson v. L.M.S. (1930) 1 King's Bench 41 (in which there was exemption from liability, not on the ticket, but only in small print at the back of the time-table, and the company ......
-
High Court Considers Contractual Construction Of Irrevocable Letter Of Credit Incorporating UCP 600
...of ordinary practice should have been done to bring to [the party's] notice' the terms: Thompson v London Midland & Scottish Railway Co [1930] 1 KB 41 (CA) 52 (per Lawrence LJ). The question of what satisfies that notice requirement turns on three The nature of the document and whether it i......
-
Non-regulated Contracts
...handed to the passenger the contract would already have been concluded, see, e.g. Thompson v London, Midland & Scottish Railway Company [1930] 1 KB 41. 21 Chapleton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 KB 532 (a deckchair receipt) and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 – in which the consumer was......
-
Table of Cases
...(No 2) [2002] CLY 2323, [2001] 10 WLUK 457, 17 October 2001, Leeds Cty Ct 6.36 Thompson v London, Midland & Scottish Railway Company [1930] 1 KB 41, 98 LJKB 615, 141 LT 382, [1929] All ER Rep 474, CA 6.27, 10.358 Thompson v Thomson Holidays, 17 January 2005 (unreported), Stoke on Trent Cty ......
-
International Conventions and Regulations - Carriage of Passengers and Baggage
...irrespective of whether it is the negligence of the carrier or his employees which causes the loss. 341 337 Thompson v LM & S Railway [1930] 1 KB 41. 338 Hood v Anchor Line [1918] AC 837 at 846. 339 Gold, silver, precious stones, bank notes, stamps, furs, hand-made lace and ‘trinkets’ among......