The Case of Woodgate versus the Great Western Railway
This article covers a legal dispute between Walter Bradford Woodgate and the Great Western Railway which lasted from December 1881 to March 1885.
The Journey[edit | edit source]
On Saturday Christmas Eve 1881 Walter Bradford Woodgate, a 40-years old barrister of 2 Hare Crescent, London, practising in the Oxford Circuit, obtained a return ticket at Paddington station containing, on the face of the ticket, the words "Great Western Railway 24th December 1881 Bridgnorth to Paddington via Bewdley and Worcester First Class. Paddington to Bridgnorth via Worcester and Bewdley". He was born in Belbroughton, Worcestershire where his father was the Vicar for many years, so may have been visiting his family for Christmas. He had travelled on previous occasions on the GWR and mentioned when he purchased the ticket (which had on the back of each half "Issued subject to the conditions stated on the Company's Time-bills" and on the front "see back") that he was in possession of a copy of the book of timetables – known as time-bills.
The usual means provided at that period by the GWR for the conveyance of passengers from Paddington to stations on the Severn Valley line were as follows: By the 10am train service from Paddington destined for Wolverhampton via Oxford and Worcester as far as Hartlebury and thence, after a wait of 9 minutes, by a local train on the Severn Valley line timed to arrive at Bridgnorth at 3.38pm. There was also a service leaving Paddington at 2.15pm which included a through carriage for the Severn Valley line which was detached at Hartlebury and added to a Severn Valley service. Indeed, 3 years previously, the 10am train also had a through carriage but this had been discontinued. On the day in question, in consequence of the unusually large number of passengers wanting to travel, the GWR divided the 10am service into two parts as far as Worcester. Mr Woodgate was directed to travel in the second portion which was despatched from Paddington at 13 minutes past 10 o'clock. At Westbourne Park, the first call, there was a large number of passengers and a great amount of luggage to load so a further 3 minutes was lost. Further delays occurred prior to Reading through slow running and the foggy conditions resulting in the train calling at Slough to detach a carriage which would normally have been 'slipped', losing 8 minutes. Leaving Reading, it was running 55 minutes behind the timetable. At the first trial, the Guard said he had been told during the journey that there had been a collision at Slough at 6am that day between a newspaper train and a coal train resulting in the line being blocked by a de-railed coal truck – this had a knock-on effect.
It was the custom for the GWR to inspect passengers' tickets at Worcester with this portion of the Wolverhampton being held from 3.16pm to 3.36pm as the two parts were combined for the last leg. The Court was informed that the Shrub Hill station was excellent with a covered platform and a first-class refreshment and waiting room. The large numbers of passengers de-training with luggage saw further delays such that arrival at Hartlebury was not until 4pm, some 90 minutes after the due time. Woodgate, on arrival, found the connection from Hartlebury had been despatched at 3.13pm. The decision had been made by the Hartlebury Station Master, Thomas Stephens, age 41, due to the large number of passengers already to travel on the Severn Valley line and to avoid disruption of other traffic on the single line.
The next passenger train for Bridgnorth was not due to depart until 6.50pm (with the through carriage off the 2.15pm from Paddington) so Woodgate asked for a special train to be provided – there were around 10 other passengers for the Severn Valley line from Hartlebury. It was reported at the hearing that the accommodation for passengers at Hartlebury was very inferior to that at Worcester – the platform was uncovered and the only waiting room was a 'general apartment' serving as a booking office and containing a refreshment stall. The Station Master agreed to attach a carriage to the 4.35pm goods train although only a second-class carriage was available in the siding. The inevitable shunting at intermediate stations resulted in a prolonged journey so Woodgate's arrival in Bridgnorth was not until 7.20pm; the goods train taking 1 hour 45 minutes longer than the equivalent passenger service.
Woodgate would have had time on the slow journey in the single carriage to get acquainted with his fellow passengers and discuss whether they should complain to the GWR. One of them, Thomas Kemp (who was to appear at the hearing as a witness for Woodgate), corresponded with the Superintendent's office at Paddington. Kemp's letter had described the lack of punctuality and concluded "By this irregularity, I was put to great inconvenience and considerable expense, and, unless some satisfactory explanation can be given, I shall expect the GWR Company to forward me the sum of £1 1s, the minimum extra cost entailed on me through the Company's bad faith". The Superintendent had responded expressing regret and enclosing a post-office order for the sum demanded. This information seems to have prompted Woodgate to consider taking legal action as he considered the GWR to have admitted liability for the delays and inconvenience caused.
The County Court Hearings[edit | edit source]
The 'plaint' was entered into the Court proceedings almost 2 years after the event on 22nd December 1883 and tried at Marylebone County Court before Judge Henry James Stonor on the 5th and 19th February 1884. Woodgate in his submission went through the events of that Christmas eve and put into the evidence the ticket in question and the book of time-bills for December 1881, which contained the following paragraph: "Train bills. The published train bills of this company are only intended to fix the time at which passengers may be certain to obtain their tickets for any journey from various stations, it being understood that the trains shall not start from them before the appointed time; but the directors give notice that the company do not undertake that the trains shall start or arrive at the time specified in the bills; nor will they be accountable for any loss, inconvenience, or injury that may arise through delays or detention, unless upon proof that such loss, inconvenience, injury, delay, or detention arose in consequence of the wilful misconduct of the company's servants. The granting of through tickets to places off the company's lines is an arrangement made for the greater convenience of the public, but the company will not hold themselves responsible for any delay, detention, or other loss or injury whatsoever arising off their lines, or from acts or defaults of other parties, nor for the correctness of the times over other lines or companies, nor for the arrival of the company's own trains in time for the nominally corresponding trains of any other company. Passengers booking at intermediate stations can only do so conditionally upon there being room in the train."
It was contended by Woodgate at the hearing, that it was the duty of the defendants to have provided a special train from Hartlebury to Bridgnorth on the day in question in connection with the train on which he travelled from London to Hartlebury. The GWR's witnesses admitted that it would have been physically possible to have sent a special train from Worcester to proceed from Hartlebury at 4.10pm along the Severn Valley line, but this could not have been done without violating a standing order of the company "that no special train is to be sent along the single line unless written notice of the intention to send such a train shall have been previously sent to each station on the route, and the receipt of such notice shall have been acknowledged in writing by each station master respectively".
At the close of Woodgate's case, the GWR's counsel applied for a 'nonsuit' on the grounds that there was no evidence of any breach of contract or of duty on the part of the company or of actionable damage sustained by the plaintiff and that he was received as a passenger by the GWR subject to the paragraph and conditions on the said book of time-tables and had given no evidence that the delay and detention in respect of which he sued, had arisen in consequence of the wilful misconduct of the defendant's servants. The learned judge refused to 'nonsuit', and held that the said notice and conditions were inapplicable to the present case, and that it was for the defendants to show that the delay and detention of which the plaintiff complained were owing to no neglect or want of due care and effort on their part. The hearing was adjourned for 2 weeks to enable the GWR to elaborate on the causes of the delays and why a special train could not have been provided.
In reference to the standing order, the GWR said, assuming that this regulation had not been observed, and that notice had been given by telegraph instead of in writing, a special train might have been despatched from Worcester at 3.45pm, leaving Hartlebury at 4.10pm, but such special train could not, without disarranging other traffic, have proceeded beyond Bewdley until 6.25pm, or have arrived in Bridgnorth until 7.05pm (there being no place where trains can pass each other between Bewdley and Bridgnorth, as from 4.10 until 6.20 the line between these two places was required for the transit of 3 ordinary up trains, one for passengers and 2 for goods coming from Shrewsbury to Worcester). By arranging that the said passenger train should (if punctual) be detained at Bridgnorth for 35 minutes, and that one of the goods trains should be detained there for one hour and 5 minutes, the special train might have proceeded from Bewdley at 4.30pm and reached Bridgnorth at 5.10pm. On that day, the said passenger train started 30 minutes late from Shrewsbury and did not, in fact, leave Bridgnorth until 5.08pm. The chief clerk of the superintendent's office at Paddington (being called as a witness with reference to the regulations as to special trains) also stated that there had been a report on the day that there had been a collision at Slough in consequence of a coal train coming off the relief line.
Judge Stonor took time to consider his judgement before announcing this on 28th April 1884. He held that conditions referred to on the ticket and time-table did not affect the case, that the defendants were bound to show a valid excuse for the unpunctuality complained of, that they were not liable for much of the delay caused by excess passengers or fog but there was evidence that delay was caused by a collision at Slough, and that, in absence of proof that this was the result of an accident, it must be deemed to have been caused by the wilful misconduct of the GWR servants. He rendered the defendants liable to Woodgate for damages he had sustained in the sum of 10s for the physical inconvenience and discomfort occasioned by his detention at Hartlebury and 10s for the inferior accommodation and delay on the journey from Hartlebury to Bridgnorth. He also stated that, in his opinion, it was the duty of the defendants to have provided a special train without delay.
He gave the GWR leave to appeal by special case on their undertaking to forego County Court costs, in the event of the judgement being reversed. He left a note saying: "I think it right to add that the statement of the guard as to the collision referred to was objected by the counsel for the GWR as being hearsay evidence, but that the subsequent statement by the chief clerk of the Superintendent's Department as to such collision was not objected to; and that I was under the impression that the fact of the collision was admitted; and that, if either party had applied for an adjournment to produce further evidence as to such collision, I should have granted it." The GWR were naturally dismayed at the verdict and gave leave to appeal as a special case.
The Appeal Hearing[edit | edit source]
The appeal was heard at the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division before Judges Hawkins and Smith. Wightman Wood, acting for the GWR, made the following points on 4th December 1884: The County Court judge decided that the contract with Woodgate was not governed by the condition contained in the time-tables and, secondly, that, even with that condition applying, there was evidence to justify his finding that the plaintiff's inconvenience and detention arose in consequence of the wilful misconduct of the company's servants. Wood referred to the judgements in 7 cases where the railway's duty was to the management of the train in which the appellants travelled and the conditions referred to on the tickets did apply. Wood contended further that, even if Judge Stonor was right on the two points, the damages ought to have been nominal only and not the substantial sum of £1.
Woodgate responded, in person, referring to 3 cases where the judgement had picked up the fact that the words on the ticket 'see back' were only on half the ticket, which might have been detached. Also, that the passenger contract implied the duty of through travel including to trains requiring connections. He suggested that the likely delay due to the derailment should have been known at Paddington in time for the 10am departure or, at least, at Worcester and the correspondence between Kemp and the GWR showed admittance of liability. Wood, in reply, said that the only case where there was said to be a specific requirement for saying that a passenger's attention must be expressly drawn to the conditions in the time-table was 'Parker versus the South Eastern Railway Company' but this was overturned on appeal, i.e. the terms in the time-tables are included in the contract.
Judges Hawkins and Smith agreed that they had sufficient information to give judgement in the matter. Hawkins said "I am of the opinion the County Court judge was wrong – the plaintiff says the contract was broken by not providing a suitable train north of Hartlebury; the Company claims they were not obliged to provide a special train as the liability only applied if such delays were due to the wilful misconduct of them or their servants. Some have said this is unreasonable, but I do not find it so." He details his examination of the return ticket, finding it clear as 'see back' is almost as large a type as 'Paddington' and he regarded the conditions referred to on the back as part of the contract of carriage.
In regard to the admission of liability in the evidence found in the exchange of letters with Thomas Kemp, a fellow passenger, he did not believe any judge or jury would accept this as admission of liability to the plaintiff. If they did, he thought they would be utterly wrong, for he regarded the correspondence as nothing more than a complaint made by a regular passenger. He had been put to money expense and the company agreed to compensation. He found the County Court judge's argument that the defendants should show that the delay and detention of which the plaintiff complained of, were owing to no neglect or want of due care on the company's part was not correct. It was for the plaintiff to establish negligence and he could find no such evidence.
Judge Smith agreed that Mr Woodgate suffered vexatious delay, the journey being four hours longer than it should have been; but the question is whether he is entitled to recover for this delay. He referred to previous judgements as to the nature of the contract between the passenger and the railway company and finds that the conditions referred to on the back of the ticket apply including the wording in the time-bills which Mr Woodgate possessed. The case referred to by Mr Woodgate in his evidence was back in 1876 and the wordings had been altered since then to make the contract clearer.
The plaintiff claimed to have given evidence of wilful misconduct of the GWR servants referring to the collision at Slough but he did not consider that those at Paddington would have known that the delays to the Wolverhampton train would necessarily occur along the route. The condition says 'nor will they be accountable for any loss, inconvenience, or injury which may arise from detention or delay'. He thought that clear and, as for Mr Kemp's letter, he only refers to 'great inconvenience' and the company does not admit to wilful misconduct. He agreed with Hawkins on the provision of a special train as the station master at Hartlebury would have broken through the company's regulations which seemed reasonable (advance notice of special trains). If he had done so, he could have been in great danger of being indicted should an incident have occurred.
The judgement on 2nd March 1885 was for the appellants, the Great Western Railway, with refusal to the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal. So ended this three-year long saga. Walter Woodgate was better known as a Cambridge blue, appearing in many boat races and authoring many articles on boating.
See also[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
External links[edit | edit source]
- Walter Bradford Woodgate on Wikipedia