Grand Trunk Railway Co of Canada v Barnett: PC 28 Mar 1911

In an action against the appellant railroad company for damages for personal injuries resulting from collision caused by the negligence of the appellants’ servants it appeared that the collision took place on the property of the appellants to which the train carrying the plaintiff, which belonged to another company, had access by their leave and licence. It further appeared that the plaintiff was a trespasser on the appellants’ property and also on the said train, which to his knowledge was not at the time in use as a passenger train and in which he had taken up a precarious position on the platform and step of a carriage in disobedience of a by-law of both companies.
Held: that the appellants were not liable, for no breach of duty had been shewn. The judgment of the Board refers to ‘wilful or reckless disregard of ordinary humanity rather than mere absence of reasonable care’

[1911] AC 361 PC, [1911] UKLawRpAC 12
Cited by:
CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.181273