Inglis v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co [1941] ScotCS CSIH_2 (03 July 1941)

Inglis v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co [1941] ScotCS CSIH_2 (03 July 1941)

The Court held that the unexplained opening of the railway carriage door, in the absence of evidence of interference by passengers or third parties, constituted prima facie evidence of negligence by the railway company or its servants in failing to ensure the door was properly closed and fastened. The pursuer successfully excluded other possible causes, and the defenders failed to discharge the onus of proof to show absence of negligence.

Citation
[1941] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Pursuer: Inglis; Defender: London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 July 1941
Procedural Posture
Delict (tort) / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session, Inner House
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Burden of Proof, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Solatium (damages for Bereavement)
Tort Personal Injury Railway Law Negligence Burden of Proof Res Ipsa Loquitur Solatium (damages for Bereavement)

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

Parties

Inglis

Pursuer

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co

Defender

Procedural Posture

Delict (tort) / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session, Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unexplained opening of a railway carriage door during travel is prima facie evidence of negligence by the railway company
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer excluded the possibility of interference by passengers or third parties
  3. 3 Whether the award of damages for solatium was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the unexplained opening of the railway carriage door, in the absence of evidence of interference by passengers or third parties, constituted prima facie evidence of negligence by the railway company or its servants in failing to ensure the door was properly closed and fastened. The pursuer successfully excluded other possible causes, and the defenders failed to discharge the onus of proof to show absence of negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed.

Orders

  • Findings of fact and law to be amended to expressly state negligence by defenders in failing to close and properly fasten the door or ensure it was properly closed and fastened before departure.
  • Award of £300 for solatium to stand.