Proper Notice of Exemption Clause Required
A ticket, having on its face only the words ‘Dublin and Whitehaven’, was given to a passenger who, without looking at it, paid for it and went on board. Having lost all his luggage he brought an action against the company. The company pleaded that, on the back of the ticket, there was an intimation that they were not to be liable for losses of any kind, or from any cause.
Held: They were liable.
Lord Cairns Chancellor said that ‘It would be extremely dangerous to hold that where a document is complete on the face of it, but having on the back of it something which has not been brought to the knowledge of a contracting party, he shall be held to have assented to that which he has not seen and which he knows nothing.’
Lord Chelmsford said that a mere notice from the steam packet company without the passenger’s assent will not discharge them from performing the very essence of their duty, which is to carry safely and securely, unless prevented by unavoidable accidents.
Lord Hatherley said that a ticket is in reality nothing more than a receipt for the money which has been paid.
Lord O’Hagan said that when a company desire to impose special and stringent terms of on their customers, there is nothing unreasonable in requiring that those terms shall be distinctly declared and deliberately accepted
Lord Cairns Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Hatherley, Lord O’Hagan
(1875) LR 2 Sc Ap 470, LR 2 HL Sc 470
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – White v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.650943