Silverlink Trains Ltd v Collins-Williamson

In assessing whether a railway company’s train-despatch system is negligent, the court sets the standard of care on the evidence. Industry practice and expert opinion are relevant but do not bind the court. A very small risk during the short period after passengers’ doors have closed and before the train moves may not require an engineering modification, particularly where the proposed safeguard creates its own risks and there is no evidence of comparable accidents. Where a trial judge’s factual findings depend on oral and documentary evidence, an appellate court should not interfere merely because another view is possible. A guard who sees, or ought to see, plainly intoxicated and unsafe behaviour on the platform should not signal the train to start.

Paul Phillip Collins-Williamson was seriously injured after falling from the platform at Gunnersbury Station into the gap beside a departing train operated by Silverlink. The train company accepted responsibility for the train and station operation. The High Court found liability both vicariously, for the guard’s failure to respond to the respondent’s conduct, and for a defective operating system because the guard could not look out through an opening window after re-entering the train. Contributory negligence was assessed at 50%. Silverlink appealed on the factual finding that the respondent’s conduct began while the guard was still on the platform and on the system finding. The central issues were whether the factual finding was open to the trial judge and whether the absence of an opening window fell below the required standard of care.

1. Appeal dismissed. The finding that the respondent’s drunken and obvious behaviour began by 42.49, while the guard was still on the platform, was open to the trial judge on the evidence. The Court of Appeal accepted that the respondent might have fallen at any point within the relevant 14-metre area, but that did not exclude the inference that he had covered some distance. The evidence, including Mr Gregory’s account and the witnesses’ evidence, entitled the judge to conclude that the behaviour began before the guard re-entered the train. The appellate court would not reverse that finding merely because the evidence could support another view [30]–[32].
2. It was common ground that, if the guard saw or ought to have seen the respondent’s conduct while the train was stationary, he was negligent in signalling the driver to start and in failing to take other action [8], [33].
3. The separate system allegation failed. The standard of care is set by the court on the evidence. The court is not bound by expert opinion or industry practice, although both are relevant factors [57]–[58]. The evidence showed no previous accident across the appellants’ network during the 10-to-20-second period between the guard leaving the platform and the train moving. The risk of a fall in that interval, even involving a drunk or eccentric prospective passenger, was extremely small. An opening window also presented risks, including trapping the guard, abuse through the window and attempted entry [57]–[59]. Silverlink therefore did not fall below the required standard by using Class 313 trains without such a window [59]–[60].
4. The court declined to interfere with the trial judge’s 50% assessment of contributory negligence, despite the basis being confined to vicarious liability for the guard’s negligence [61].

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2009] EWCA Civ 850: appeal dismissed. The court upheld the High Court’s finding of vicarious liability for the guard’s negligence, rejected the separate negligent-system finding, and left the 50% contributory-negligence assessment undisturbed.
2. Queen’s Bench Division [2008] EWHC 2945 (QB): His Honour Judge Reddihough found Silverlink liable in negligence and assessed contributory negligence at 50%.