Railways' Liability For Loss Of Stock

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31765, 23 August 1968, Page 17

Railways ' Liability For Loss Of Stock

On the ground that it was in a different position from road carriers, the Railways Department did not bear strict liability for loss or damage, the executive committee of the meat and wool section of North Canterbury Federated Farmers was told this week. The branch had before it a letter from the legal officer of Dominion Federated Farmers setting out the liability of the department in the event of loss of goods or stock. The letter arose from a complaint from the Amur! branch after the loss of some lambs railed to a freezing company. An Amuri delegate, Mr I. K. Dunbar, said that a fanner had sent lambs to a railhead by lorry. They had been loaded into two trucks, 80 in one and 76 in the other.

When the lambs reached the works, eight in one truck were dead, the cause being given as suffocation. The department had declined compensation. The legal officer for Dominion Federated Farmers said that when the department gazetted its general and local scale of charges it limited its liability for loss or damage. It was probably under this exemption that the department was now claiming that the livestock was conveyed at the sole risk of the owner. The Minister could permit the department to avoid the strict liability for loss or damage which was imposed on road carriers. The department defended its policy by saying that it was in a different position from road carriers. For example, stock was often consigned, farmers themselves doing the loading. The department therefore had no way of checking the condition of livestock or other goods sent by rail. The department also claimed that to accept general liability meant that it would have to increase rates and charges. Any one consigning goods or stock by rail could have it insured. The letter said that the department was being asked to state the specific grounds on which it was denying liability in the present case.