Study manual

219 
[14] Skinner V. London, Brighton and South Coast RlY. Co. COURT 
OF EXCHEQUER. 1850. 5 EX. 787. 
A collision between two trains of the same Company 
is evidence of negligence on its part. 
[THE plaintiff went, in a train of the defendants, on an 
excursion from London to Brighton and back. On the return 
journey, it being then dark, the train in which the plaintiff 
was ran into another train, which had stopped a short distance 
from the station, in consequence of a luggage train before it 
having broken down. In the collision he received injuries, for 
which he brought this action.] 
In summing up, Pollock, C.B., told the jury that the fact of the 
accident having occurred was of itself prima facie evidence of 
negligence on the part of the defendants; referring to the 
ruling of Lord Denman, C.J., in Carpue v. The London and 
Brighton Railway Company
56
. The jury having found a verdict for 
the plaintiff, 
Bramwell moved for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. 
The effect of the learned Judge's direction was to cast the onus 
56
. 
5 Q.B. 751. 

---

220 
probandi on the wrong party. The plaintiff complains of 
negligence, and therefore he is bound to prove it; and for that 
purpose it is not enough to shew that an accident in fact 
happened, but he ought further to prove, that the accident was 
the result of the defendants' negligence. [POLLOCK, C.B. Surely 
the fact of a collision between two trains be longing to the 
same company is prima facie some evidence of negligence on their 
part. ALDERSON, B. This is not the case of a collision between 
two vehicles belonging to different persons; where no negligence 
can be inferred against either party, in the absence of evidence 
as to which of them is to blame. But here all three trains 
belong to the same company; and whether the accident arose from 
the trains running at too short intervals, or from their 
improper management by the persons in charge of them, or from 
the servants at the station neglecting to stop the last train in 
time, the company are equally liable; and it is not necessary 
for the plaintiff to trace specifically in what the negligence 
consists. And if the accident arose from some inevitable 
fatality, it is for the defendants to shew it.]... 
PER CURIAM. We are all of opinion that there was evidence for 
the jury. 
Rule refused. 

---