Study manual

Wexford Railway Company v. Slattery
52
. I agree with these noble 
Lords in thinking that, whether the question of such 
contributory negligence arises on a plea of "not guilty", or is 
made the subject of a counter issue, it is substantially a 
matter of defence; and I do not find that the other noble Lords, 
who took part in the decision of Slattery's Case, said anything 
to the contrary. In expressing my own opinion, I have added the 
words "in the first instance", because in the course of the 
trial the onus may be shifted to the plaintiff so as to justify 
a finding in the defendants' favour to which they would not 
otherwise have been entitled....
The evidence appears to me to shew that the injuries which 
caused the death of Henry Wakelin were occasioned by contact 
with an engine or a train belonging to the respondents; and I am 
willing to assume, although I am by no means satisfied, that it 
has also been proved that they were in certain respects 
negligent. The evidence goes no further. It affords ample 
materials for conjecturing that the death may possibly have been 
occasioned by that negligence, but it furnishes no data from 
which an inference can be reasonably drawn that as a matter of 
fact it was so occasioned. ... 
LORD FITZGERALD.... There was evidence intended to establish 
negligence on the part of the defendants, in the absence of due 
and proper precautions for the safety of the public using that 
52
. 
3 App. Cas. 1169, 1180. 

---

208 
footpath. It seems to me that there was evidence of negligence, 
but it did not go so far as to establish that such negligence 
led to the death of Wakelin. It fell short of proving that the 
immediate and proximate
53
cause of the calamity was the 
negligence of the defendants. We are left to mere conjecture as 
to whether it was the causa causans, and that we cannot resort 
to. The plaintiff undertook to establish negligence as a fact, 
and that such negligence was the cause of her husband's death.
She failed to do so, and the proper course to have adopted at 
the close of the plaintiff's case was to have directed a verdict 
for 
the defendants.... 
It has been truly said that the propositions of negligence and 
contributory negligence are (in such cases as that now before 
your Lordships) so interwoven as that contributory negligence, 
if any, is generally brought out and established on the evidence 
of the plaintiff's witnesses. In such a case, if there is no 
conflict on the facts in proof, the judge may withdraw the 
question from the jury and direct a verdict for the defendant, 
or if there is conflict or doubt as to the proper inference to 
be deduced from the facts in proof, then it is for the jury to 
decide. But if the plaintiff can establish his case in proof 
53
. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE. There are other synonyms; e.g. `natural' (cf. p. 54 supra), `probable,'
`effective', `proximate', `normal', `causa causans,' `immediate', `direct'. Lord Sumner has expressed
(L.R. [1920] A.C. 984) preference for `direct'. The appropriate 
adjective `proximate' has - he points out - the drawback of having acquired a specially narrow
meaning when applied to marine or fire Insurance. There "only the causa proxima, the last cause 
alone, must be looked to", although in other liabilities a defendant may be responsible for an event
which is simply an efficient cause of the damage.] 

---

209 
without disclosing any matters amounting to contributory 
negligence or from which it can be reasonably inferred - then 
the defendant is left to give such evidence as he can to sustain 
that issue.... 
Appeal dismissed. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE. With this case the student may usefully contrast 
that of Fenna v. Clare (supra), p. 465), where the very peculiar 
facts rendered it less necessary to connect the nuisance and the 
injury by express evidence; and also that of Byrne v. Boadle 
(infra, p. 562), where the mere cause of the injury raised, of 
itself, a presumption of negligence. See also p. 26 n. supra.] 

---