RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11, 13 September 1913, Page 7

RAILWAY CROSSINGS.

la summing' 1 ii|i in the da<sb in v/liich Mrs,. Broad claimed ' from the dailway Department, us compensation for the loss of her luishand, who was rilled at the Marton railway, crossing, and in which a new trial lias been n-dcrad, the jury having failed to igreo, the Chief Justice, Sir llobert ytout (states the Wanganui correspondent of the Otago Daily Times) •eferred to several interesting phases >f the taise, particularly the speed vith which crossings were taken by rains. The Bail way Department, he .aid, admitted that 25 miles an hour vas excessive over all crossings, he■auso they had fixed the speed at only 'our miles in the.case of the crossings >.t Stratford and 10 miles in the case >f the crossings at Palmerston North. Pius showed that 25 miles per hour nay be excessive. There was nothing n the regulations, his Honour coninued, that trains should run over Tossings at 25 miles an hour. The mly Instructions the engine driver; ad were not to exceed a certain rate, lamely, 35 miles an hour. What the jury had to decide was whether the Tossing was such that it was negli ■cut to drive trains over it at 2 niics an hour. Was it proper and •oasonablo for a train to keep up : ipeed of 25 miles an hour, having retard to the traffic? It was probably .veil known to the deceased when the train was timed to leave. This train vas six minutes late. If Mr Broad Bought ififhad left the Marton staion and gone over the crossing, he '■mild feel he need not he so cau- >. lions as if lie had reason to expect it. The stationmaster had stated that the train was unusually late, a statement which made the case stronger, fifteen miles an hour might be a high rate of speed in some circumstances. It was quite clear that there was evidence' that the crossing had been inmill iently metalled, but the Crown mid that that had nothing to do with the case. On the other hand it was suggested that the deceased might have swerved and have saved himself if the crossing had been properly metalled. The proof of the contributory negligence was on the Crown, and the jury had no right to find that there was want of care on the part of the deceased unless it was proved. A great error of judgment on the part of the deceased was not negligence. The question of damages, his Honor said, was really, not in. dispute. Parliament said that as against the Crown no more than £2OOO can be given, ithenvise there was no reason why a much larger amount should not be ■claimed. It was correct to distinguish I this from a worker’s compensation case where compensation was awarded even if the worker was most negligent. If a private company had been con (corn d there would have been no limit |to the amount of the damages that | might he proved.