Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Malcolm Macgregor, coal merchant, Glasgow, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against the Glasgow District Subway Company for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by him. The defenders were proprietors of the Glasgow District Subway, carrying passengers by cars which are hauled by an endless cable or wire rope on a circular subway route extending from St Enoch Square on the east to Partick on the west.

The pursuer averred—“(Cond. 2) The defenders in carrying on this undertaking run trains consisting of two cars coupled together, each of which has at its outer extremity an exit door, and at its inner extremity an entry door. The carrying capacity of such trains is about 75 passengers. The said trains are run into the stations at a speed of ten or twelve miles an hour, and are suddenly pulled up for egress and ingress of passengers, and immediately restarted with such rapidity as to cause intending passengers to crowd opposite the entry doors. Owing to the construction of the said cars, it is difficult, if not impossible, for an intending passenger while standing on a platform at said stations to ascertain whether there is vacant accommodation or not. The said trains are run in charge of a driver, a guard or conductor, and a boy, who are the servants of the company. The said platform is about 12 feet wide and can only with safety accommodate from 40 to 50 persons opposite where the cars stop. (Cond. 3) On Monday, 22nd January 1900, in accordance with his usual practice, the pursuer arrived at the defenders' Kelvin-bridge

Page: 481↓

booking office about a quarter to nine a.m. for the purpose of travelling by the defenders' subway car eastwards to St Enoch Subway Station, and after having passed the turnstile and paid his fare, for which he received a ticket, he was admitted to the station platform upon which a number of intending passengers had then assembled. In terms of the defenders' regulations only intending passengers holding tickets are admitted to said platform. (Cond. 4) Defenders' trains are timed by public advertisement and otherwise to run at intervals of three to four minutes. On the morning in question, owing to a breakdown of defenders' system or other cause, the traffic had become disarranged, and their trains going eastwards had for some time been running at intervals of fifteen minutes or longer, a fact which was well known to the defenders and their servants. From the time of pursuer's arrival on the said platform no eastward bound train arrived for a period of from twelve to fifteen minutes, while during said period three westward bound trains passed. During this period, which is at one of the busiest hours for traffic of the day, a large number of additional passengers had arrived at the Kelvinbridge station and had been passed through the said turnstile and been given access to the said platform by the ticket clerk or servant of the defenders, and that without any inquiry as to the number of passengers already thereon. The passengers accumulated on said platform amounted in number to 200 or thereby, with the result that the same was greatly overcrowded, particularly at the point in centre of platform opposite where the trains stop. The only official of the defenders in charge of said station was the station-master, and notwithstanding that he was aware of the irregularity with which the trains were running, and that owing to the long intervals between trains larger numbers of passengers assembled than was usual, he took no step to regulate the number of passengers to be admitted to the platform at one time, or otherwise to provide for their safety. (Cond. 5) At the expiry of said period a train for pursuer's destination entered the station. The cars thereof were much overcrowded and passengers were standing on the entrance and exit platforms in contravention of defenders' bye-laws. Notwithstanding this the conductor of said train, as it was passing the point where the pursuer was standing, and while the train was still in motion, opened the entrance door thereof. The crowd on the platform thereupon concentrated at the point opposite where the entry door would come to a stop, with the result that pursuer was pressed against the moving train, and in endeavouring to save himself from injury his left leg was caught between the moving cars and the edge of the platform, and he was dragged for several yards until the train was brought to a standstill. The pursuer remained in this position for about five or six minutes, there being no appliances available for his extrication until the car was emptied and raised by the passengers sufficiently to enable his leg to be withdrawn. (Cond. 6) By said accident pursuer was caused very severe pain and injury.… (Cond, 7) The injuries to the pursuer were caused by culpable negligence of the defenders, or those for whom they are responsible, in failing to have any proper regulations or to take any proper steps in the conduct of their said undertaking for the protection of their passengers when congregated upon said platform. In particular, the servants of the defenders, the said stationmaster and ticket clerk at said Kelvinbridge Station, were in fault in allowing upon the platform thereof a larger number of passengers than it could safely accommodate.”

The defenders pleaded, inter alia, “(1) The action is irrelevant.”

On 29th June 1900 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Strachan) allowed a proof before answer.

The pursuer appealed for jury trial and lodged an issue for the trial of the cause.

The defenders objected to the relevancy of the action, and argued—The pursuer's averments did not disclose a relevant case of negligence on the part of the defenders. His allegations amounted in substance to this, that his injuries were caused not by the overcrowding of the platform but by the action of the passengers in concentrating towards a particular point. The defenders were entitled to admit the public to their platform, and were not bound to foresee that they would act inconsiderately, and were not liable if they did so— Cannon v. Midland Great Western Railway Company (1880), 6 L.R., Ir. 199; Hogan v. South-Eastern Railway Company (1873), 28 L.T. 271. Moreover, the pursuer had been on the platform for fifteen minutes and should himself have foreseen the risk.

Argued for the pursuer—The pursuer was entitled to an issue. He averred that the defenders had not taken reasonable precautions to regulate the conduct of the passengers on the platform, and also that they had admitted more than it could safely accommodate. Whether that amounted to negligence was essentially a question for a jury and not for the Court— Hogan, supra. In Cannon, supra, the crowd had entered the premises lawlessly and the company were held not liable. But in the present case, as in Hogan, the crowd was assembled by permission of the company, who had power to regulate the number to be allowed on the platform. The owner of a place where the public were invited or allowed to assemble was bound to foresee the risk of such an occurrence— Scott's Trustees v. Moss, November 6, 1889, 17 R. 32.

At advising—