Study manual

240 
[20] Gee V. The Metropolitan Ry. co. EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. 1873. 
L.R. 8 Q.B. 161. 
Nor is it Negligence in a railway passenger to lean 
on the carriage-window. 
DECLARATION that the plaintiff was a passenger on defendants' 
railway to be safely carried; that defendants so negligently 
conducted themselves in carrying plaintiff and managing the 
carriage in which plaintiff travelled, that plaintiff fell out 
and was injured.... 
[The plaintiff was a passenger by the defendants' train, and, as 
it was passing from one station to another, he rose from his 
seat with a view of looking out of the window and took hold of 
the bar of the window and pressed against it. The pressure, 
such as it was, of some part of his body, upon his taking hold 
of the bar, caused the door to open, and the motion of the train 
to throw him out of the carriage, whereby he sustained the 
injury complained of.] 
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, it was submitted on 
behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff was not entitled to 
recover, and the Chief Justice reserved to the defendants leave 
to move to enter a verdict for them or a nonsuit. The 

---

241 
defendants did not offer any evidence, and the plaintiff then 
had a verdict for Pounds 250
61
. 
A rule was obtained to enter the verdict for the defendants on 
the ground that there was no evidence of liability. 
M. Chambers, Q.C., for defendants.... If the plaintiff had sat 
still in his place in the carriage, the company would have 
carried him safely. He must shew that their negligence was the 
immediate cause of the injury; whereas the whole mischief 
resulted from his own act.... 
[The rule having been discharged by the Court of Queen's Bench, 
the defendants appealed to the Exchequer Chamber.] 
KELLY, C.B.... Was there any evidence of negligence at all on 
the part of the defendants? I am of opinion that there was 
evidence for the jury to consider, whether the defendants' 
servants had not, when this train left the station from which it 
started on its journey, failed to see that the door was properly 
fastened in the ordinary manner in which such railway carriage 
doors are fastened. There was evidence to go to the jury that 
they had failed in the performance of that duty. But the 
preliminary question arises, is it their duty? I am of opinion 
that it is - that it is the duty of the railway company, by 
61
. 
It appeared that the Chief Justice left two questions to the jury: first, whether there
was negligence on the part of the defendants in not properly fastening the door; secondly, whether
there was negligence or improper or imprudent conduct on the part of the plaintiff. 

---

242 
their servants, before the train starts upon its journey, to see 
that the door of every carriage is properly fastened. Here was 
evidence that this door was not properly fastened: for if it had 
been, it would not have flown open upon the degree of pressure 
that was applied to it by the plaintiff; and therefore there was 
evidence to go to the jury, upon which they were justified in 
finding negligence on the part of the defendants. 
But then, I agree, we must go further, and inquire whether there 
was evidence of "liability": in other words, whether there was 
evidence also that this negligence of the company was the cause 
of the mischief which occurred to the plaintiff. I am of 
opinion that there was evidence. Certainly the mischief would 
not have befallen him if that door had been properly fastened.
The question is, therefore, whether he did anything which it was 
not lawful for him to do, and which we should be satisfied, 
taking the whole evidence together, was the cause of the 
mischief which befell him. If he did, I agree that the case 
fails on the part of the plaintiff. But why? Because, though 
he has proved that the defendants were guilty of negligence, he 
has not proved that negligence was the cause of the mischief 
which befell him. The question of what has been termed 
contributory negligence does not, in my opinion, arise: because 
I am clearly of opinion upon the facts that there was no 
evidence of contributory negligence. 
... On the facts that are before us, then, the question is, 

---

243 
whether there was evidence of negligence on the part of the 
company which caused the accident. I have already shewn that 
there was evidence of negligence; and that there was evidence to 
go to the jury that their leaving the door not properly fastened 
was the cause of the injury which the plaintiff sustained 
without any improper act on the part of the plaintiff. Because 
I am of opinion that any passenger in a railway carriage, who 
rises for the purpose either of looking out of the window, or of 
dealing with (and touching, and bringing his body in contact 
with) the door for any lawful purpose whatsoever, has a right to 
assume, and is justified in assuming, that the door is properly 
fastened; and if, by reason of its not being properly fastened, 
his lawful act causes the door to fly open, the accident is 
caused by the defendants' negligence. 
Judgment affirmed. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE Contrast the facts in Metropolitan Railway Co. 
v. Jackson; supra, p. 45.] 

---