FALL FROM TROOP TRAIN

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 262, 24 July 1918, Page 6

FALL FROM TROOP TRAIN

LIABILITY OP RAILWAY DEPART- , MENT. Hig Honour Mr. Justice Hosking delivered reserved -judgment yesterday morning in the caso of Milly M'Laren, suppliant, r. His Majesty the King, irespondent. This suit was tried in August last before .a jury of twelve, and was brought in respect of a claim by the suppliant for damages for tho death of her husband, which she alleged was caused by the negligence of the Railway Department in the management of thetrain which ran from Wellington to Trentham on April 28, 1917. The deceased was a member of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, and was returning to camp on , the occasion in question, together with-a number of other soldiers, by a train the carriages of which were of special construction— that is, they differed from the other railway passenger carriages in use in New Zealand. The deceased opened and stepped out of one of the doors of the carriage by which he was travelling and fell on the line and was killed. The negligence which it was alleged brought about this accident consisted in the special construction of the carriage and the absence of such safeguards as, it waa said, a carriage 'of that , construction rejsonably demands. The carriage used for conveying troop's to and from the camps are more like a guard's van than the ordinary passenger v carriages. The enand exit are by ft sliding door in the side of tho carriage. The Crown set lip contributory negligence on the part of tho deceased, 'alleging ho was fully awnro of the character of the carriage; that he was drunk;, that in opening the door he was acting against No. GO of tho Camp Standing Orders, or against tho camp instruction on tho subject of travelling by rail, and in defiance of the notico on tho door. The jury's verdict was in favour of the suppliant, and awarded her .£225 damages. Pursuant to leave reserved, the Crown moved that judgment be. entered in its favouff, or that a nonsuit bo entered upon tho grounds:— (1). That thero was no evidence to go to the jury that the suppliant was dependent on the deceased. ' (2) That there was no evidence to go to tho jury that the death was caused by the negligence of the respondent's servants. , (3) That the evidence given at the trial proved conclusively that the death of the deceased was caused by or contributed to by his own negligence. _ His Honour held that the first point was untenable. With regard, to the question of negligence, His Honour held that thero was evidence to go to the jury, upon which, viewed reasonably, they might properly find that the carriage was not in a reasonably eafe and proper condition for the purpose for which it was used. His Honour reviewed' at length the Crown's allegation of contributory negligence, and-saii: On tho whole, therefore, it is clear to me that the position as to contributory, negligence was that there was sufhciont evidence which could lead to the conclusion that the direct cause of the accident was the want of a locked door, and not the man's own folly." , ■ Tho motion' was dismissed, with costs ,£lO 10s and disbursements against tho Turing Mr. P. Lev. for tho suppliant, and Mr. P. t>. *• Macassey for the Crown.