|
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:16:56 -0400 From: Jason Neyers Subject: Grand Trunk Railway
Colleagues: Does anyone have an opinion about the Privy Council's decision (by Haldane) in Grand Trunk Railway v. Robinson [1915] AC 740? I have an uneasy feeling about the case for a number of reasons (pre-D v S view of negligence, violation of Dunlop v. Selfridge) but I wonder what others thought. From the Headnote:
The respondent, by arrangement with the owner of a horse, travelled in charge of it upon the appellants' railway. The owner's representative, in the presence of the respondent, signed a "livestock special contract," in a form authorized by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. This contract provided for the carriage of the horse and contained, upon its face, a condition relieving the appellants from liability for death or injuries, even where caused by negligence, to a person permitted to travel with the horse at less than full fare. The document was handed to the respondent in order, as he knew, to show that he was travelling with the horse, but neither he nor the owner's representative read the conditions. A half fare was charged for the conveyance of the respondent, and, together with the freight for the horse, was payable by the owner upon delivery. Across the face of the contract was printed in large red type "Read this special contract," and at the side was written (but not as part of the authorized form) "Pass man in charge half fare." The respondent, having been injured during the journey by the negligence of the appellants, sued to recover damages:- Held, (1.) that the true inference was that the respondent accepted the document knowing that it contained a contract made on his behalf for his conveyance, and that he was bound by the condition on its face exempting the appellants from liability.
--
<<<< Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next Message >>>>>
|
»
»
»
»