Odger's English Common Law

RAILWAY PASSENGERS. 653
Canal Traffic Act, so far as applicable, have been extended
to such steamer's and the traffic carried on thereby. 1
When goods have arrived at their destination, the practice
of railway companies is to send an " advice note " to the
consignee as an intimation that the goods have arrived.
This advice note is sent as soon as possible, for it informs the
consignee that, if the goods are not fetched away, the company
will only keep them as warehousemen and not as carriers,
the difference being that in the former case their liability
depends on negligence and is not, as it would be in the
latter case, an absolute liability. The railway company's
contract is to carry the goods and also to keep them a
reasonable time after they have arrived at their destination ;
but if they are not fetched away within such reasonable
time, the company can make an extra charge.
RAILWAY PASSENGERS.
A railway company is not a common carrier of its pas-
sengers ; it is not an insurer of human beings. Hence any one
who is injured in a railway accident cannot recover damages
from the company without proving negligence.
There is very little statute law dealing with passengers.
The Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, enacts that every
railway company, so far as its own line is concerned, 2 must
afford " reasonable facilities for the conveyance of traffic." 3
Proceedings are often taken before the Eailway and Canal
Commissioners to enforce this duty. The word "traffic"
includes passengers, and it has been held that the term
" reasonable facilities " includes a cloak-room, a waiting-
room and a platform of sufficient length. 4
"When a passenger takes a ticket from A. to B., the
company contract to carry him, and also a certain amount of
i 26 & 27 Viot. c. 92, s. 31. Where the vessel is not owned by or worked by the
company, see 31 & 32 Viet. o. 119, s. 12 ; 61 & 52 Viet. c. 25, s. 28 ; and 57 & 58
Viot. c. 60, ss. 502, 503.
a Zunz v. S. E. Ry. Co. (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 539.
s 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 2.
* See Singer Manufacturing Co. v. L. S; S. W. Ry. Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 833, 836 ;
S. E. Ry. Co. v. Railway Commissioners (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 586.