Waller, Administratrix of George Waller, Deceased v The South Eastern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1863 |
| Date | 07 May 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 43
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 32 L. J. Ex 205, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 501, 11 W. R. 731, 8 L T 325 Considered, Lovegrove v. London, Brighton and South Cost Railway, 1864, 16 C B (N S.) 669, Morgan v. Vale of Neath Railway, 1864, 33 L. J. Q. B. 260. Affirmed L. R. 1 Q. B. 149, The Petrol, [1893] P. 325.
[102] waller, Administratrix of George Waller, Deceased v. the south eastern railway company. May 7, 1863.-A railway Company is not liable foi injury to the guard of a train, occasioned by the negligence of the " gaugei " of the platelayers in keeping the permanent way in proper repair and condition , the two servants being engaged in one common object, viz. the safe conduct of the passengers on their journey. [S. C. 32 L. J. Ex 205 , 9 Jur. (N. S.) 501, 11 W. R. 731 , 8 L T JJ5 Considered, Lovagrauev. Louden, Brighton and South Coa* t Railway, 1864, 16 C B (N S.) 669, Morgan v. J-^ak of Nedth Piailway, 1864, 33 L. J. Q. B. 260. affirmed L. R. 1 j. B 149 , The Petiol, [1893] P. 325 ] Declaration. For that at the time of committing the grievances, &c, and in the lifetime of the said G. Waller, he was employed by the defendants as a railway guard, to take charge of and travel in certain carriages of defendants, wherein they carried passengers for hire, on a railway constructed by and belonging to the defendants, under the powers of the act of parliament relating to the said Company ; nevertheless the plaintiff says that the said railway, at the time of the occurrence hereinafter mentioned, while the defendants were using the same for the conveyance of passengers for hire thereon m such carriages as aforesaid, was, by the neglect and default of the defendants, constructed unsafely, and with defective and improper materials, and out of repair, and in an unsafe and defective condition, and unfit for the purpose aforesaid, of which the defendants, at the time aforesaid, had notice, but of which the said G. Waller was ignorant; and by reason of the piemises, whilst the said G Waller was so employed by the defendants as such railway guard us aforesaid, and was, in the course of his said employment, in charge of, and tiavelhng in certain carriages of the deiendants, wherein they were carryrng passengers on the said railway, part of the said railway broke and gave way, and thereby the carriage in which the said G. Waller was travelling, in pursuance of his said employment as aforesaid, was overturned, and the said G Waller thereby grievously hurt, wounded, and injured, and by reason of the hurts, &c, the said G. Wallei, immediately afterwards, and wrthm twelve [103} calendar months next before this suit, died, whereby the plaintiff, who was the wife of the said G Waller, and S. Waller1, R Waller, &c , who are the infant children of the said G. Waller, wholly lost the support and maintenance which they received from him in his lifetime, and were deprived of the means of living And, therefore, the plaintiff, as administratrix as aforesaid, according to the for m of the statute in such cases made and provided, brings this action for the benefit of herself and her said children. Plea. Not guilty. At the trial, before Martin, B., at the Kent Summer Assizes, 1862, a verdict was 44 WALLER V. THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY 2 H & C 104 taken by consent for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case - The deceased, G. Waller, was h rarlway guard in the employment of the defendants at weekly wages, and it was his duty, as such guard, to travel with and m the passenger trains worked by the defendants on the Noith Kent Kailway, a line belonging to and worked by the defendants under the powers of the act of parliament relating to the South Eastern Hallway Company. In the course of such duty, while he was tiavailing in a passenger train of the defendants carrying passengers for hire on the above line, between Strood and Gcaveseud, on the '20th of March last, the train ran off the line and ovetturned the break-van in which he was, whereby the said G. Waller was killed on the spot It was admitted by the parties that the accident happened through the decayed condition of the trenails which fastened the chairs to the hleepeis on the defendants' railway, and that it was the duty of the " ganger " of the platelayers, a servant of the defendants, to see to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Huddart Parker Ltd v Coiter
-
Morgan v The Vale of Neath Railway Company
...overloaded. Hutchinson v. The York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway Company (5 Exeh. 343), and Waller v. The South Eastern Railway Company (2 H. & C. 102), in deference to which Cockburn C.J. concurred in discharging the rule in the Court below, are distinguishable. [Pollock C.B. The judgment......
-
The Petrel
...v. McGuire 3 Mac. H. L. C. 300 Charles v. Taylor 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 773 3 C. P. Div. 492 Waller v. South-Eastern Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & C. 102 The PalermoDID=ASPM 52 L. T. Rep. N. S. 390 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 369 10 P. Div. 21 The FranconiaDID=ASPM 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 57 3 P. Div. 164 4 ......
-
M'Kinney v The Irish North-Western Railway Company
...Ex. 319. Priestley v. FowlerENRUNK3 M. & W. 19; 7 L. J. Ex. 42. Potts v. PlunkettUNK9 Ir. C. L. R. 290. Waller v. South-Eastern RailwayENR2 H. & C. 102. Sullivan v. WatersUNK14 Ir. C. L. R. 460. Williams v. CloughENRUNK3 H. & N. 258; 27 L. J. Ex. 325. Griffiths v. GidlowENRUNK3 H. & N. 648;......