Odger's English Common Law

carriers of goods. 647
conditions to the notice of the consignor, 1 he was legally
bouud by them, although he had not in fact read them. 2
Hardships were often imposed on consignors by reason of
this method of restricting the liability of the carrier.
In 1854, however, was passed the Eailway and Canal
Traffic Act, which enacted that railway and canal companies
are liable for negligence or default in the carriage of goods,
notwithstanding stipulations entered into to the contrary,
unless such stipulations are embodied in a special contract made
and signed by the sender of the goods or his agent, and are
also adjudged to be just and reasonable by the Court or judge
before whom any question relating thereto shall be tried. 3
The Act applies to every railway company and every canal
company in the United Kingdom and to the owner or lessee of,
or contractor working, any railway or canal or navigation
therein constructed or carried on under the powers of any Act
of Parliament. 4
To determine what conditions are reasonable, it will be
necessary to look at all the circumstances of each individual
case. If the alternative to non-liability be a condition so
onerous that no reasonable person could possibly adopt it,
then it amounts to giving no alternative at all and it has
frequently been held that, if no alternative is given, such a
condition is unreasonable. " In order to judge whether the
condition is reasonable or not, you must look at this con-
sideration : Are
the individual and the public sufficiently
protected from being unjustly dealt with by the effect of the
monopoly ? " 5 The burden of showing that a condition is
reasonable lies on the railway company. 6
If some of the
conditions contained in a special contract are good and some
bad the good conditions may be severed from the bad and
enforced. Moreover, if a railway company intends to limit
1 Richardson v. Roumtree, [1891] A. 0. 217.
2 Parker v. 8. E. Ry. Co. (1877), 2 C. P. D. 116.
3 17 & i8 yict. c. 31, s. 7. This section does not apply to a contract exempting
a railway company from loss on a railway not belonging to or worked by .the company :
Zunz v. S. E. Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. i Q. B.'539 ; WatHns v. Rymill (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 178.
* lb., s. 1.
5 Per Lord Blackburn, in Manchester, Sheffield, tfc, Ry. Co. v. Brown (1883), 8
App. Cas. at p. 711.
6 See Harrison v. L. B. ,< S. C. My. Co. (1860), 2 B. & S. 122, 152; Peek v.
North Staffordshire Ry. Co. (1862), 10 H. L. Cas. 473.