Neilson v. North British Railway Co. [1906] ScotLR 44_235 (20 December 1906)

Neilson v. North British Railway Co. [1906] ScotLR 44_235 (20 December 1906)

The only relevant averment is that the train ran past the platform unknown to the pursuer, which may be construed to mean she believed she was at the platform when alighting. On this narrow ground, the case is relevant and should go to a jury. If the pursuer cannot prove this averment, there is no relevant case.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 44_235
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Janet Kennedy or Neilson; Defender/reclaimer: North British Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 December 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/personal Injury) / Relevancy Debate; Interlocutor on Relevancy; Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue for Jury
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; case to proceed to jury trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Invitation to Alight, Passenger Safety, Relevancy of Pleadings
Tort Personal Injury Railway Law Negligence Duty of Care Invitation to Alight Passenger Safety Relevancy of Pleadings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Kennedy or Neilson

Pursuer/respondent

North British Railway Company

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/personal Injury) / Relevancy Debate; Interlocutor on Relevancy; Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Approval of Issue for Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments disclose a relevant case of negligence against the railway company for injuries sustained while alighting from a train not at the platform.
  2. 2 Whether the calling out of the station name by a porter constitutes an invitation to alight in circumstances where the train has overshot the platform.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's knowledge or lack thereof regarding the train's position relative to the platform is essential to relevancy.

Ratio Decidendi

The only relevant averment is that the train ran past the platform unknown to the pursuer, which may be construed to mean she believed she was at the platform when alighting. On this narrow ground, the case is relevant and should go to a jury. If the pursuer cannot prove this averment, there is no relevant case.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; case to proceed to jury trial.

Orders

  • Case to proceed to jury trial on the approved issue.