Hendrie and Others v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1909] ScotLR 601 (19 March 1909)

Hendrie and Others v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1909] ScotLR 601 (19 March 1909)

The 1839 Act does not apply to this crossing, as the 1845 Act is incorporated and governs; the defenders had no statutory duty to lock wicket-gates or station a watchman for foot-passengers. No relevant case of negligence is stated, as the circumstances did not impose a duty for additional precautions, and the deceased's death was due to his own failure to look out for his safety.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 601
Parties
Pursuer (reclaimer): Mrs Helen Shepherd or Hendrie (as individual and as tutrix and administratrix-in-law for her pupil children); Defender (respondent): Caledonian Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 March 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/damages) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders (respondents) affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Statutory Duty, Level Crossing Safety, Contributory Negligence
Tort Statutory Interpretation Railway Law Negligence Statutory Duty Level Crossing Safety Contributory Negligence

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Helen Shepherd or Hendrie (as individual and as tutrix and administratrix-in-law for her pupil children)

Pursuer (reclaimer)

Caledonian Railway Company

Defender (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/damages) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 1 of the Highway (Railway Crossings) Act 1839 impose a statutory duty on the railway company regarding foot-passenger safety at this level-crossing?
  2. 2 Did the defenders owe a common law duty to take additional precautions (locking wicket-gates, stationing a watchman) under the circumstances?
  3. 3 Was there a relevant case of negligence or breach of statutory duty stated by the pursuer?

Ratio Decidendi

The 1839 Act does not apply to this crossing, as the 1845 Act is incorporated and governs; the defenders had no statutory duty to lock wicket-gates or station a watchman for foot-passengers. No relevant case of negligence is stated, as the circumstances did not impose a duty for additional precautions, and the deceased's death was due to his own failure to look out for his safety.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders (respondents) affirmed

Orders

  • The Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's judgment and assoilzied (absolved) the defenders.