JEWAN RAM KHETTRY Vs. EIRYCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At 1-45 A.M. on the 4 of April 1922, a terrible disaster befell the Punjab Up Mail. It was travelling at a speed of between 42 and 45 miles an hour round a curve about a quarter of a mile above Jainti Bridge, 173 miles from Calcutta, and 8 miles from Madhupur, when the passengers became aware of a loud, grating noise; the lights went out, and a few moments later, the engine, tender and six carriages were precipitated down an embankment 30 feet in depth. Eight persons were killed, and 25 were injured. The plaintiff was travelling with some members of his family in the train, and this suit is brought to recover damages in respect of the alleged negligence of the defendant Company causing damage to him.

(2.) On the issue as to whether or not the defendant Company is liable in respect of negligence, this case is a test case, and the determination of it will govern other cases. On the issue of liability a number of cases were cited to me, and I propose to state the principles of law to be found therein. On this issue, however, the facts are not in controversy, the contest between the parties being as to the true inference which ought to be drawn from those facts.

(3.) Now, although a Railway Company does not insure the safety of persons whom it undertakes to carry, the duty which it owes to such persons is of a highly onerous nature. For, a Railway Company must needs take all such steps as skill, prudence, and foresight can devise to keep passengers free from personal injury while travelling on its system. It must take care <JGN>Page</JGN> 2 of 8 that its employees are honest and efficient, and that the material equipment of the line is of proper quality, and, so far as a skilful mechanic can detect, in good working order. If a Railway Company neglects to take such steps, or to provide the best available apparatus to secure the safety of persons whom it has agreed to carry, it fails to fulfil the obligation which is imposed upon it by the law, and becomes liable to compensate passengers travelling on its system in respect of any persona injury which they may suffer by reason of such neglect: Readhead v The Midland Railway Co. [1869] 4 Q.B. 379, Daniel V/s. Metropolitan Railway Co. [1871] 5 H.L. 45, E.I. Ry. V/s. Kalidas Mukerji [1901] 28 Cal. 401, and McDowall V/s. Great Western Ry. Co. [1903] 2 K.B. 331. In applying these simple and well-defined principles of law to the facts of particular cases, however, difficulty sometimes arises, and the circumstances of the present case indicate, I think in an opposite manner, the care with which the law relating to negligence is to be administered. For a Railway Company is under an obligation not only to protect passengers from dangers of which the Railway Company is aware, but also to take steps to forestall the risk of personal injury from any other cause to which it ought to anticipate that passengers may be exposed. The precautions taken must be commensurate with the anticipated risk, and exceptional measures may be necessary to obviate abnormal dangers.