Study manual

210 
[12] The North Eastern Ry. Co. V. Wanless. HOUSE OF LORDS. 1874. 
L.R. 7 H.L. 12. 
What may be evidence of Negligence. 
THE cause was tried before Mr. Justice Brett, at Durham, in the 
spring of 1869. It appeared that on the Pensher branch of the 
North Eastern Railway, there was, near Hylton, a spot at which 
the railway crossed a public highway on the level. There were 
the proper carriage-gates, and there was also on each side of 
the railway a gate for foot-passengers. The south side of the 
railway is called the up-line, the north, the down-line. The 
number of coal trucks daily passing there is very considerable. 
On the 27th of April, 1868, the plaintiff, in company with three 
other boys, came along the road on the north side of the railway 
to cross over the line by the level crossing. The evidence as to 
how the boys got on the line, whether through the carriage or 
the foot-passenger gate, was contradictory. A train of forty-
eight empty coal-trucks was coming on the up, or south side of 
the line, from Sunderland to Pensher, and it passed through the 
Hylton station without stopping. The boys had with them a dog; 
and persons who were on the north, or down side of the line, 
shouted to the boys to keep the dog from running among the 
trucks. This train passed, and when it had done so the plaintiff 
advanced to cross the line, and was instantly knocked down by a 

---

211 
train passing on the north, or down side, of the line, the side 
on which the boys had been standing. For the company, evidence 
was given that the plaintiff might have seen this train at the 
distance of half a mile; but on the part of the plaintiff it was 
stated that the distance between the carriage-gate on the north 
side and the line itself, is about twelve feet, and that the 
boys could not on that side see the approaching train till they 
were seven or eight feet within the gate on the north side. The 
rules and regulations of the company on this subject were put in 
evidence. Rule 174 was in these terms: "Unless a written order 
to the contrary be given by the engineer, the gates shall be 
kept shut across the carriage roads except when required to be 
opened to allow the railway to be crossed." Rule 175: "When 
the railway is required to be crossed, the gatekeeper shall, 
before opening the gates, satisfy himself that no engine is in 
sight, he shall then shew his danger signals, and keep them 
exhibited until the line is clear, when he shall close the gates 
and alter the signals". It did not appear that any signal was 
exhibited; and on the question whether the carriage-gate on the 
north side was or was not open, the evidence was contradictory. 
It was contended for the company that there was no evidence of 
negligence to go to the jury. The learned judge, however, held 
that there was, and left the case to the jury, who found a 
verdict for the plaintiff, damages #100. A rule was obtained to 
enter a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence of 
negligence. This rule was discharged; and on appeal to the 

---

212 
Exchequer Chamber that decision was affirmed
54
. This appeal was 
then brought. 
Manisty, Q.C., for the company.... The plaintiff was warned 
about the danger to his dog; he knew, therefore, that caution 
was necessary; he did not act with reasonable caution; he stayed 
till one train had passed by, and then, without taking any 
trouble to look whether another was coming, which he might have 
seen if he had looked, he advanced on the line and was injured. 
That injury was altogether the result of his own negligence, 
and there was no evidence to go to the jury that the company's 
servants had been guilty of any negligence at all. Even if the 
gates had been left open, that did not constitute an invitation 
to the plaintiff to come on the line; and there was no evidence 
to shew how he came there, or that he came through the carriage-
gates at all; and it was those gates that were the special 
subject of provision in the section of the statute. 
LORD CAIRNS, L.C.... The only question raised in the case for 
your Lordships' determination is, whether there was here 
evidence of negligence to go to the jury? What the jurors 
should do upon the evidence, or whether they should find any 
damages or not, was a question for the jury, and is not for this 
House now to consider. 
My Lords, the facts of the case have been stated so recently, 
54
. 
L.R. 6 Q.B. 481. 

---

213 
that I do not think it necessary to repeat them. It appears to 
me that the circumstances that the gates at this level crossing 
were open at this particular time, amounted to a statement, and 
a notice to the public, that the line at that time was safe for 
crossing. And any person who, under those circumstances, went 
inside the gates, with the view of crossing the line, might very 
well have been supposed by a jury to have been influenced by the 
circumstances that the gates were open. Then, when inside the 
gates, the boy who in this case was injured, saw what was 
inconsistent with the gates being open, namely, he saw one train 
passing; and it may very possibly be the case that circumstances 
embarrassed him, and that his eyes and attention being fixed 
upon that particular train, when it passed out of the way he 
failed to see the other train. He appears not to have seen it, 
but attempted to cross the line, and was knocked down and 
injured. It is quite clear he might have seen the other train - 
there is no doubt about that - but the result of the state of 
facts only comes to this, that being brought upon the line 
through the circumstance of the gate being open, he was placed 
in a position which was more or less embarrassing, and he did 
not use his faculties so clearly as he might have done under 
other circumstances. 
My Lords, the question is, might not a jury fairly consider that 
his being there at all was owing to the negligence of the 
railway company? It appears to me that there was evidence to go 
to the jury to which weight might have been given, and from 

---

214 
which the jurors might have been led to conclude that he was 
there in consequence of the circumstance I have referred to 
viz., the gates being open. And that being the only point for 
the Court to consider, I certainly am of opinion that the Court 
could not do otherwise than hold that the question of negligence 
might, upon this evidence, rightfully be submitted to the 
consideration of the jury. 
I therefore move your Lordships that the judgment of the 
Exchequer Chamber and of the primary Court be affirmed, and that 
this appeal be dismissed with costs. 
LORD CHELMSFORD and LORD SELBORNE concurred. 
Appeal dismissed. 
 Metropolitan Railway Company V. Jackson
55
The respective functions of the judge and the jury as to the
evidence adduced to prove Negligence. 
55
. 
With this case may be compared that of Drury v. N.E. Ry. Co., L.R. [1901] 2 K.B. 322; in
which, as in it, the plaintiff's hand had been injured through a porter's having hastily shut the
door of a railway-carriage. 
To draw up a train short of the platform is not in itself Negligence. But it throws on the railway
company a duty to give to the passengers an express warning as to the position of the train; the
omission to give this will constitute Negligence.] 

---