Compensation for Drunk falling under train

[DaveNewcastle]

Back in 2003, one late at night at Gunnersby station, Paul C-W got off a train, messed around, banging the train window, perhaps as if trying to get back on again, but slipped or fell under the train as it started to pull away. His injuries led to the amputation of a leg. It was a 313 and there is quite a gap at the platform edge of Gunnersby's curved platform.

I was in Court for the hearing where his large legal team were not only trying to blame the guard for negligence, but also blame Silverlink for dangerous procedures, inferior train design and poor station facilities, with the argument that (if they won) then the TOCs would have to meet an even higher standard of safety.
Silverlink had an excellent expert witness in Mr Metcalfe.
There was no dispute that Paul C-W was drunk and "playing the goat" on the platform.
The judge found that Paul C-W AND Silverlink were equally to blame - the guard and their procedure, (but did NOT recommend changes to procedure or design).
And Silverlink Appealed.
Well, 3 weeks ago the Appeal was heard and the Court still believe that Silverlink must pay compensation.
Local press:
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/...ent_wins_payout_after_losing_leg_under_train/
The Court Judgement:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/850.html

 

[Aictos]

4. Intoxication and possession of intoxicating liquor

(1) No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is unfit
to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication.

(2) Where reasonable notice is, or has been, given prohibiting intoxicating liquor on any train service, no person shall have any intoxicating liquor with him on it, or attempt to enter such a train with intoxicating liquor with him.

(3) Where an authorised person reasonably believes that any person is unfit
to enter or remain on the railway, or has with him intoxicating liquor contrary to Byelaw 4(2), an authorised person may:

(i) require him to leave the railway; and
(ii) prevent him entering or remaining on the railway until an
authorised person is satisfied that he has no intoxicating liquor
with him and/or is no longer in an unfit condition.

6. Unacceptable behaviour

(1) No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway.

(2) No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the railway.

*****************************************************************

Seeing as it's manned 24/7 according to National Rail were the local police or BTP not called?

surely, someone must have seen this idiot and could have reported it seeing as there's help points at most stations plus they could have spoken to the guard.

With all that said, I don't believe he should be awarded compensation as you have to take responsibility for your own actions, I just hope he's learnt a very valuable lesson.

Might sound harsh but it's true.

Anyway from the court hearing:

The judge made two findings against the appellants. The first was on the basis of their vicarious liability for negligence of the train guard, Mr Sanjayan, who should have observed that the behaviour of the respondent on the platform was such that the guard should not have given the signal to start the train. The second was on the basis that the appellants' system for operating class 313 units was defective in that, because the window in the guard's local door did not open, he could not observe the platform, and the behaviour of passengers on it, from a position inside the train before and after giving the signal to start.

So how do NXEC cope then with their 91s and Mk4s as the guard could be in any of the coaches and can't lower the window to observe the departure of the train!

 

[westcoaster]

its the same on different types of stock, i do believe the rule book was ammended and there is no longer a requirement to observe the train leaving the platform, due to this not being available on some stock on the network i.e 313's, 350's unless in a cab, 377's also unless in a cab

 

[mumrar]

its the same on different types of stock, i do believe the rule book was ammended and there is no longer a requirement to observe the train leaving the platform, due to this not being available on some stock on the network i.e 313's, 350's unless in a cab, 377's also unless in a cab

Sort of correct. You are still as always required to remain by the Door Control Panel until the train is clear of the platform. From a safety point of view I've always been instructed NOT to have my head out of the window because of airborne dirt, vegetation or flying spit or objects thrown. It has not ever been a requirement for head out in the 12 years I've been a guard. If you look at the design of older MUs you can see why. 150/2, 153, 156, and 158 are all units I've signed for that it's not possible to drop a window on.

 

[ffcphone]

No opportunity for Train Manager to observe the platform edge all along the train when a Pendo pulls out either unless I'm mistaken. Plus, given the length of Pendos, you'd have thought there's more chance of an "incident" than on shorter trains.

F

 

[Drsatan]

Of course, some stations have mirrors at the platform edge for driver-operation only trains so the driver could see down the platform, but they aren't used since most trains have a guard. I don't think the guy should recieve compensation either - he should have looked where he was going and he can presumably still move unaided (prosthetic leg), so his injuries aren't life-threatening.