Study manual

borough, 40 T.L.R. 557); though had it been left on a steep 
slope, with the brakes out of order, there would be sufficient 
proof of negligence (Parker v. Miller, 42 T.L.R. at p. 409.] 
[11] Wakelin V. The London and South Western Railway Company. 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 1886. L.R. 12 APP. CAS. 41. 
The plaintiff must prove not merely that the defendant was 

---

200 
negligent but also that the damage was caused by that 
negligence. 
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal. 
The action was brought by the administratrix of Henry Wakelin on 
behalf of herself and her children under Lord Campbell's Act, 9 
& 10 Vict. c. 93. 
The statement of claim alleged that the defendants' line between 
Chiswick Station and Chiswick Junction crossed a public footway; 
and that on the 1st of May 1882 the defendants so negligently 
and unskilfully drove a train on the line across the footpath 
and so neglected to take precautions in respect of the train and 
the crossing that the train struck and killed one Henry Wakelin, 
the plaintiff's husband, whilst lawfully on the footpath. 
The statement of defence admitted that on that day the 
plaintiff's husband whilst on or near the footpath was struck by 
a train of the defendants, and so injured that he died, but 
denied the alleged negligence; did not admit that the deceased 
was lawfully crossing the line at the time in question; and 
alleged that his death was caused by his own negligence and that 
he might by the exercise of reasonable caution have seen the 
train approaching and avoided the accident. 
At the trial before Manisty, J., and a special jury in Middlesex 

---

201 
in December 1883 the following evidence was given on behalf of 
the plaintiff. It appeared from the defendants' answers to 
interrogatories that the crossing was a level crossing open to 
all foot passengers: that the approaches to the crossing on each 
side of the line were guarded by hand gates: that there was a 
slight curve at the crossing: that assuming the deceased to have 
been crossing the line from the down side and standing inside 
the hand gates but not on the line he could have seen a train 
approaching on the down side at a distance of nearly if not 
quite half a mile, but that when standing in the centre of the 
line he could have seen a train approaching on the down side at 
a distance of more than one mile: that the body of the deceased 
was found on the down side of the line and that he was run upon 
and killed by a down train: that the engine carried the usual 
and proper head lights which were visible at the distances above 
mentioned: that the company did not give any special signal or 
take any extraordinary precautions while their trains were 
travelling over the crossing: that a watchman in the company's 
employ was on duty from 8 a.m. to 8. p.m. to take charge of the 
gates and crossing and amongst other duties to provide for the 
safety of foot passengers. 
Oral evidence was given that from the cottage where the deceased 
live it would take about ten minutes to walk to the crossing; 
that he left his cottage on the evening of the 1st of May after 
tea, and that he was never seen again till his body was found 
the same night on the down line near the crossing. There was no 

---

202 
evidence as to the circumstances under which he got on to the 
line. Witnesses for the plaintiff gave evidence (not very 
intelligible) as to the limited number of yards at which an 
approaching train could be seen from the crossing, and as to 
obstructions to the view. 
The defendants called no witnesses, and submitted that there was 
no case. Manisty, J., left the case to the jury who returned a 
verdict for the plaintiff for £800. The Divisional Court 
(Grove, J., Huddleston, B., and Hawkins, J.) set aside the 
verdict and entered judgment for the defendants. The Court of 
Appeal (Brett, M.R., Bowen and Fry, L.JJ.) on the 16th of May 
1884 affirmed this decision. In the course of his judgment 
Brett, M.R., said that in his opinion the plaintiff in this case 
was not only bound to give evidence of negligence on the part of 
the defendants which was a cause of the death of the deceased, 
but was also bound to give prima facie evidence that the 
deceased was not guilty of negligence contributing to the 
accident; and that by reason of the plaintiff having been unable 
to give any evidence of the circumstances of the accident she 
had failed in giving evidence of that necessary part of her 
prima facie case. 
From this decision the plaintiff appealed. 
Acland, for appellant. There was evidence of negligence (viz. 
the dangerous nature of the crossing; the neglect to whistle or 
use any kind of warning except the use of head lights; the 

---

203 
withdrawal of the gatekeeper after 8 p.m.); from which the jury 
might reasonably infer that the negligence caused the death.
The case was on all fours with Williams v. Great Western Railway