1.0) Introduction

An Act to make new provisions in the law relating to railways and for other matters

connected. This Act may be cited as the Railways Act 1991 and shall apply to all railways in

Malaysia. This Act shall come into force on such date as the Minister may, by notification in

the Gazette, appoint and the Minister may appoint different dates for the coming into force of

a different provisions of this Act; or all or different provision .“Railway” means any kind of

railway for the public carriage of passengers or goods or both, or any portion thereof, and

includes all rails, beams, cables, sidings, or branches worked over for the purposes of, or in

connection with, a railway all rolling-stock used for the purposes of traffic; and in so far as

the context allows, a railway under construction by or for any railway company.

No railway shall be constructed within Malaysia without the approval of the Minister.

Railways 15 (2) Any person intending to construct a railway within Malaysia shall make an

application to and deposit with the Minister a railway scheme which shall contain the

following information. For This assignment our groups focus on PartVIII Accident And Part

IXOffences And Penalties In Laws Of Malaysia Act 463Railways Act 1991.

1

PART VIII

2.0) ACCIDENTS

A) Notice of accident to be given

Section 45

(1) Whenever an accident occurs upon a railway—

(a) the railway officer in charge of a station nearest to the place at which the accident

occurs shall, without unnecessary delay but in any case not later than twenty-four

hours after the occurrence of the accident, give notice of the accident in writing or

by any form of telecommunication to the officer in charge of the nearest police

station; and

(b) the railway company shall, without unnecessary delay but in any case not later

than twenty-four hours after the occurrence of the accident, send written notice of

the accident to the Director General.

(2) The notice shall contain a brief statement of the nature of the accident and of the extent of

the injuries or damage caused.

(3)

B) Inquiry

Section 46

(1) As soon as possible after the occurrence of an accident, the railway company shall

cause an inquiry to be made by a committee of railway officials to investigate the

cause of the accident but in cases where there is no reasonable doubt as to the cause of

the accident or the railway company accepts all responsibility, it shall not be necessary

to hold such inquiry.

(2) The railway company shall submit to the Director General a report on the accident and

such report shall state what action the company proposes to take with regard to the

officials responsible for the accident or for the revision of the rules or system of

working and, if an inquiry has been held under subsection (1), a report on the inquiry.

(3) The Director General may, if he is not satisfied with the report submitted to him under

subsection (2), and with the approval of the Minister, form a committee of

investigation to inquire into the cause of the accident.

2

(4) For the purposes of such inquiry, the committee of investigation may summon any

person to attend any meeting of the said committee to give evidence on oath or

produce any document or other thing in his possession and to examine him as a

witness or require him to produce any document or other thing in his possession

related to the matters which are the subject matter of such inquiry.

(5) Any person who, under subsection (4)—

(a) having been summoned to attend any such inquiry, failsto do so;

(b) offers any act of disrespect or any insult or threat to the committee or any

member thereof during an inquiry; or

(c) having been required by the committee to give evidence on oath or to produce

a document or other thing, refuses to do so or gives false evidence or produces

a document or any other thing which he knows to be false, shall be guilty of an

offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand

ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both.

(6) The committee of investigation shall, on completion of the inquiry, submit its report to

the Director General and such report shall state the opinion of the committee as to the

cause of theaccident and the full particulars of the case.

C) Minister may order inquiry

Section 47

(1) The Minister may order that an inquiry into the cause of any accident upon a railway be

made by any person designated in such order.

(2) Any person so appointed shall have and may exercise, for the purposes of such inquiry,

all the statutory and other powers as are for the time being vested in and exercisable by a

magistrate for summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, foradministering

oaths or affirmations to such witnesses and for compelling such witnesses to answer all

reasonable and proper question related to the matters which are the subject of

suchinquiry.

(3) The person holding such inquiry shall submit to the Minister a copy of the proceedings

and report his opinion as to the cause of the accident together with full particulars of the

case.

3

D) Meaning of “accident”

Section 48

For the purpose of sections 45, 46 and 47, “accident” means an accident attended by loss of

human life or grievous hurt to any passenger upon any train or to any person engaged in the

working of the railway or by serious damage to property or an accident of such a description

as is usually attended by such loss, hurt or damage.

E) Power to make regulations relating to notices of accident, etc.

Section 49

The Director General may, with the approval of the Minister, make regulations relating to—

(a) the forms of the notices mentioned in section 45, and the particulars of the accident which

those notices are to contain;

(b) the class of accidents in respect of which notice is to be sent by any form of

telecommunication immediately after the accident has occurred;

(c) the duties of railway officials or police officers on the occurrence of an accident; and

(d) the procedures of any inquiry into an accident.

F)Submission of return of accidents

Section 50

Every railway company shall send to the Director General a return of accidents occurring

upon its railway, whether attended with personal injury or not, in such form and manner and

at such intervals or time as the Director General directs.

G) Penalty for failure to comply with section 45

Section 51

(1) Any railway company which fails to give notice of an accident as is required by section

45 shall pay to the Government a sum of one hundred ringgit for every day during which

the default continues.

(2) Any railway official in charge of a station who omits to give such notice of an accident as

is required by section 45 shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to

a fine notexceeding five hundred ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one

month or to both.

4

H) Penalty for failure to comply with section 50

Section 52

Any railway company which fails to comply with section 50 shall pay to the Government a

sum of fifty ringgit for every day during which the default continues after the fourteenth day

from the date prescribed for the submission of the returns.

I) Compulsory medical examination of persons injured in railway accident

Section 53

Whenever any person injured by an accident on a railway claims compensation on account of

the injury, any court having jurisdiction over such matter may order that the person injured be

examined by a duly qualified medical practitioner who is not a witness on either side, and

may make such order with respect to the costs of the examination as it thinks fit.

3.0) Case of Fact :

Case name: British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. v. Loach Court: Canadian caseCitation; Date: 1916 1 A.C. 7193

PROCEDURAL HISTORYTrial court: Appeal court (for appeal cases only):Plaintiff: Loach - administrator of Sands

estateAppellant: British Columbia Electric

Railway Co.Defendant: British Columbia Electric

Railway Co.Respondent: Loach - administrator of Sands

estate

Facts of the case:    Benjamin Sands, who was run down at a level crossing by a car of the appellant railway

company and was killed. One Hall took Sands with him in a cart, and they drove together on

the level crossing and neither heard nor saw the approaching car till they were close to the

rails and the car was nearly on them. There was plenty of light, and there was no other traffic

about. The verdict, though rather curiously expresses, clearly finds Sands guilty of negligence

in not looking to see that the road was clear… Hall, who escaped, said that they went “right

on to the track,” when he heard Sands, who was sitting on his left, say “Oh,” and looking up

saw the car about 50 yards off. He says he could then do nothing, and with a loaded wagon

[sic] and horses going two to three miles an hour he probably could not. It does not seem to

have been suggested that Sands could have done any good by trying to jump off the cart and

clear the rails. The car knocked cart, horses, and men over, and ran some distance beyond the

5

crossing before it could be stopped. It approached the crossing at from thirty-five to forty-five

miles an hour. The driver saw horses as they came into view from behind a shed at the

crossing of the road and the railway, when they would be 10ft. or 12 ft. from the nearest rail,

and he at once applied his brake. He was then 400 ft. from the crossing. If the brake had been

in good order it should have stopped the car in 300 Ft.

Remedy sought:

Court opinion (including key issues and arguments):

    Apart from the fact that the car did not stop in time, but overran the crossing, there was

evidence for the jury that the brake was defective and inefficient and that the car had come out

in the morning with the brake in that condition. The jury found that the car was approaching

at an excessive speed and should have been brought under complete control, and although

they gave their reason for saying so the presence of possible passengers at the station by the

crossing, and not the possibility of vehicles being on the road, there can be no mistake in the

matter and their finding stands…

        Clearly if the deceased had not got on to the lie he would have suffered no harm, in spite

of the excessive speed the defective brake, and if he had kept his eyes about him he would

have perceived the approach of the car, and would have kept out of mischief. If the matter

stopped there, his administrator’s action must have failed, for he would certainly have been

guilty of contributory negligence. He would have owed his death to his own fault and whether

his negligence was the sole cause or the cause jointly with the railway company’s negligence

would not have mattered… If the jury accepted the facts above stated, as certainly they well

might do, there was no further negligence on the part of Sands after he looked up and saw the

car, and there was then nothing that he could do. There he was in a position of extreme peril

and by his own fault, but after that he was guilty of no fresh fault. The driver of the car,

however, had seen the horses some perceptible time earlier, had duly applied his brakes, and

if they had been effective, he could, as the jury found, have pulled up in time. Indeed, he

would have had 100 ft. to spare. ... What actually killed Sands was the negligence of the

railway company, and not his own, though it was a close thing….

    Their Lordships are of opinion that, on the facts of the present case, the above observations

apply and are correct. Were it otherwise the defendant company would be in a better position,

when they had supplied a bad brake but a good motorman, than when the motorman was

careless but the brake efficient. If the superintendent engineer sent out the car in the morning

with a defective brake, which on seeing Sands, the motorman strove to apply, they would not

6

be liable, but if the motorman failed to apply the brake, which , if applied, would have averted

the accident, they would be liable…

    In the present case their Lordships are clearly of opinion that, under proper direction, it was

for the jury to find the facts and to determine the responsibility, and that upon the answers

which they returned, reasonably construed, the responsibility for the accident was upon the

appellants solely, because, whether Sands got in the way of the car with or without negligence

on his part, the appellants could and ought to have avoided the consequences of that

negligence, and failed to do so, not by any combination of negligence on the part of Sands

with their own, but solely by the negligence of their servants in sending out the car with a

brake whose inefficiency operated to cause the collision at the last moment, and in running

the car at an excessive speed, which required a perfectly efficient brake to arrest it.

Disposition of case:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in favour of

the Administrator of the Estate of Benjamin Sands. Their Lordships will accordingly humbly

advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

3.1) Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co

a) Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff was killed while attempting to cross Wabash Ry. Co.’s (Defendant’s) four railroad

tracks. Plaintiff did not get out of his vehicle to obtain a better view as required by the opinion

in Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Goodman.

b) Synopsis of Rule of Law

To get out of a vehicle is uncommon precaution, as everyday experience informs us. The

actions of a plaintiff depend on the situation and the circumstances, and it is up to the jury to

decide whether a particular course of action was reasonable.

c) Facts

Defendant had four railroad tracks. Plaintiff, in his vehicle, attempted to cross the tracks.

Plaintiff could not see the main track because a boxcar on the first track obstructed his view.

Plaintiff stopped and listened for a bell or whistle but did not hear either. Plaintiff did not get

out of his vehicle to obtain a better view as the opinion in Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Goodman

7

seemed to require. The trial court directed a verdict for Defendant on its finding that Plaintiff

had been contributory negligent. Defendant appealed.

d) Issue.

Is there a duty for Plaintiff to stop, exit the vehicle, look and listen before crossing a railroad

track?

e) Held.

No. Judgment reversed.

1) Courts declare standards of prudent conduct at times, but they are taken over by the facts of

life. To get out of a vehicle is an uncommon precaution, as everyday experience informs us.

Besides being uncommon it is very futile and sometimes dangerous. A train traveling at a

speed of thirty miles per hour will cover a quarter of a mile in 30 seconds. Instead of helping

himself by getting out, Plaintiff might do better to press forward. A train at rest at a station

could be moving in the time it takes Plaintiff to return to his vehicle.

2) Defendant did not show whether there was a locomotive at the forward end, or whether the

cars were so few that a locomotive could be seen. If Plaintiff was to leave his vehicle near the

curb, there was even stronger reason to believe that the space covered in going back and forth

would make his observations worthless.

3) To get out of the train to look and listen for oncoming trains is not natural behavior in its

customary form, but a rule artificially developed and imposed. Because there is no guide of

customary conduct, the safeguards and judgment of Plaintiff is for the jury to decide and not

the judge.

f) Discussion

The jury gets to decide whether or not Plaintiff is required to get out of his vehicle and look

for trains. There is no standard requiring that Plaintiff always get out and look and listen for a

train each time he comes upon a track, because that is uncommon conduct.

PART IX

8

4.0) OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

A) Intoxication or breach of duty

Section 54

Any railway official who—

(a) is in a state of intoxication while discharging any duty;or

(b) refuses or neglects to perform his duty or performs the same in an improper

manner,shall, if the duty is such that the intoxication or refusal, neglect or improper

performance of the duty, as the case may be, is likely to endanger the safety of any

person or goods carried upon the railway, be guilty of an offence and shall on

conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit or to imprisonment

for a term not exceeding one year or to both.

B) Unlawfully bringing dangerous or offensive goods upon railway

Section 55

If, in contravention of section 42, any person takes or causes to be taken or deposited any

dangerous or offensive goods upon a railway, or tenders or delivers or deposits any such

goods for transport upon a railway, such person shall be guilty of an offenceand shall on

conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a

term not exceeding three years or to both.

C) Entering or leaving railway coach, etc., while coach in motion, or travelling

irregularly

Section 56

Any passenger who gets into or upon, or attempts to get into or upon, or quits or attempts to

quit any railway coach while such coach is in motion, or who travels or attempts to travel on

or in any part of a coach not intended for the use of passengers, shall be guilty of an offence

and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit for each

offence.

D) Entering or leaving railway coach irregularly

9

Section 57

Any person who—

(a) at any time enters or leaves or attempts to enter or leave any railway coach otherwise

than by the door provided for the purpose on the side of the coach adjacent to the

platform or other similar place appointed by the railway company as a place for

persons to enter or leave a railway coach; or

(b) opens any outer door of any such coach while it is in motion, shall be guilty of an

offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand

ringgit.

E) Resisting entry, and entering and refusing to leave full train

Section 58

Any passenger who—

(a) resists the lawful entry of another passenger into a railwaycoach or portion of a

railway coach not reserved by the railway company for the use of the passenger

resisting; Railways 41

(b) after having been refused admission onto a train by a railway official, on account of

the train being full, nevertheless persists in entering or attempting to enter the train; or

(c) having gone on board a train at any place and having been requested by a railway

official, on account of the train being full, to leave the train before it has quitted that

place, does not comply with that request, shall be guilty of an offence and shall on

conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit and, in addition, may

be removed from the train by any railway official.

F) Penalty for disorderly or offensive behaviour or nuisance

Section 59.

Any person who—

(a) behaves in a disorderly or offensive manner or commitsany nuisance on a railway

coach or upon any railway premises; or

(b) assaults, hinders or obstructs a railway official in the execution of his duties,

(a) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding

one thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to

10

both and in addition, the offender may be removed by any railway official from any

such coach or railway premises and shall, if he is a passenger, forfeit his fare.

G) Penalty for improper use of emergency signal apparatus

Section 60

Any person who makes improper use of the emergency signal apparatus provided by a

railway company in any coach or on any train for the use of passengers to stop a train in case

of emergency shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not

exceeding one thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or

to both.

H) Penalty for removing, etc., stakes, pegs or other marks

Section 61

Any person who removes, defaces or in any way interferes with any stakes, pegs or other

marks placed by or for the purposes of a railway company along a railway track or contiguous

there to shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding

one thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.

I) Penalty for trespass

Section 62

Any person who trespasses upon a railway or upon any railway premises shall be guilty of an

offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred ringgit and, if

any such person refuses to leave the railway or railway premises on being requested to do so

by any railway official, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a

fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit, and may be immediately removed therefrom.

J) Penalty for driving any vehicle or animal upon or across a railway

Section 63

Any person who wilfully rides, leads, or drives upon or across a railway track any vehicle or

animal, except when directly crossing the railway track at any road or place appointed for that

purpose at a time at which he may lawfully do so, shall be guilty of an offence and shall on

conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred ringgit for each offence.

11

K)Penalty for damage, whether wilful or negligent

Section 64

(1) Any person who—

(a) wilfully or negligently damages any railway or any property belonging to a railway

company;

(b) removes sand, stone, earth or any other matter or thing from banks, bridges, culverts,

retaining walls or the railway track belonging to a railway company; or

(c) fells timber in a manner likely to endanger the safety of passing trains or of any

person in or upon such trains, or to cause damage to the railway track, shall be guilty

of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand

ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.

(2) Any person who ties up the wires of wire fencing, breaks down or destroys any fencing or

hedges, or does or causes to be done any act that damages or is likely to damage any fence or

hedge appertaining to a railway shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable

to a fine not exceeding one thousandringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three

months or to both.

(3) Any person who, wilfully or negligently, diverts any stream or drain or, by any means,

causes water to flow on to a railway or, causes damage to a railway in any manner by water,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five

thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.

(4) Any person who, having any contract for the supply to a railway company of bricks,

ballast, timber, fuel, or any other material, or being employed in connection with the supply to

the railway company of such material, negligently places or stacks the said material in an

unsafe or careless manner, or at less than the prescribed distance from the rails, so that the

safety of passing trains or of any person in or upon such trains is endangered shall be guilty of

an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a finenot exceeding two thousand ringgit or to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

12

L) Opening or not properly shutting gates

Section 65

If—

(a) any person opens or attempts to open any gate set up on either side of any railway

track across a road, or passesor attempts to pass, or drives or takes or attempts to drive

or take, any vehicle, animal or other thing across the railway tracks; or (b) in the

absence of a gate-keeper, any person omits to shut and fasten and, where necessary, to

lock such a gate as aforesaid as soon as he and any vehicle, animal or other thing

under his charge has passed through the gate, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall

on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit or to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.

M) Maliciously obstructing or attempting to obstruct a railway

Section 66

If any person unlawfully—

(a) puts, throws or causes to fall against, upon or across a railway any wood, stone or

other matter or thing;

(b) takes up, removes, loosens, or displaces any rail, sleeper or other matter or thing

appertaining to a railway;

(c) turns, moves, unlocks or diverts any railway points or other machinery appertaining to

a railway;

(d) moves any part of the rolling-stock on a railway track or leaves the same on any part

of a railway track;

(e) makes, shows, hides or removes any signal or light upon or near a railway; or

(f) does or causes to be done or attempts to do any other act or thing in relation to a

railway, with intent, or with the knowledge that he is likely, to obstruct the working of

the railway, or to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon the

railway, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not

exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty

years.

13

N) Maliciously hurting or attempting to hurt persons travelling by train

Section 67

If any person unlawfully throws or causes to fall or strike at, against, into, or upon any

rolling-stock forming part of a train any wood, stone or other matter or thing with intent, or

with the knowledge that he is likely, to endanger the safety of any person being in or upon

such rolling-stock or in or upon any other rollingstock forming part of the same train, he shall

be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five

thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both.

0) Penalty for causing train to stop

Section 68

If any person not being a railway official, without reasonable excuse, by making any gesture

or exhibiting any signal or otherwise,causes a moving train to be brought to a standstill, he

shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not

exceeding one thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or

to both.

P) Penalty for wilful act or omission endangering passenger

Section 69

Whoever wilfully does any act, or wilfully omits to do what he is legally bound to do,

intending by such act or omission to cause or knowing that he is thereby likely to cause the

safety of any person travelling or being upon a railway to be endangered, shall be guilty of an

offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to both.

Q) Penalty for negligent act

Section 70

Any person who rashly or negligently, and without lawful excuse, does any act which is likely

to endanger his own safety or that of any person travelling or being upon a railway, shall be

guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding two thousand

ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

14

R) Making false statements, etc.

Section 71

Any person who, in furnishing any information or makingany application under or for the

purposes of any provision of this Act, makes any statement which he knows to be false in

amaterial particular, or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding thirty

thousand ringgit.

S) Penalty for breach of Act or regulations for which no special penalty is provided

Section 72

Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Act or of

any regulations made thereunder shall be guilty of an offence and shall, if no other penalty is

provided, be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term

not exceeding three months or to both.

T) Legal duties of railway officials

Section 73

Every railway official shall be legally bound to do everything necessary for or conducive to

the safety of the public, and every such official shall be legally prohibited from doing any act

which is likely to cause danger.

U) Apprehension of offenders

Section 74

Any person found committing or attempting to commit an offence against this Act or any

regulations made thereunder may be arrested, without warrant, by any railway official or by

any police officer or by any other person whom such official or police officer may call to his

aid, and every person so arrested shall, with all convenient despatch, be taken to the nearest

police station to be dealt with according to law: Provided that a railway official shall not

effect any such arrest outside the railway premises.

15

V) Recovery of fares, charges or damages

Section 75

(1) When any person is convicted before a court of criminal jurisdiction for an offence

against any of the provisions of this Act or any regulations made thereunder, the court

may, in addition toimposing any penalty under this Act, fix or assess the amount ofany

fare, charge, damages, expenses or sum of money whatsoever which may have become

payable by such person to the railway company, and order such amount to be paid by

such person to therailway company.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent the recovery of any fare, charge, damages,

expenses or other sum of money whatsoever which may have become payable by any

person to a railway company by way of a civil claim before a court of civil jurisdiction.

W) Offence by bodies corporate

Section 76

(1) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Act and that offence is

proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable

to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer

of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to

be proceeded against andpunished accordingly.

(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1)

shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his

functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

X) Compounding of offences

Section 77

(1) The Director General or any officer authorized by him may compound any such

offence against this Act or any regulations made thereunder as may be prescribed as

an offence which may be compounded by the Director General or any officer

authorized by him by collecting from any person reasonably suspected of having

committed the same a sum of money not exceeding three hundred ringgit.

16

(2) The Director General may, with the approval of the Minister, make regulations to

prescribe the offences which may be compounded and the method and procedures

therefor.

Y) Prosecution

Section 78

It shall be competent for the Director General or any officer authorized by him to conduct a

prosecution for any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder before any

court.

4.1) Case fact

Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877]

Parker v South Eastern Railway 2 CPD 416 is a famous Englishcontract law case on exclusion

clauses where the court held that an individual cannot escape a contractual term by failing to

read the contract but that a party wanting to rely on an exclusion clause must take reasonable

steps to bring it to the attention of the customer.

Facts

Mr Parker left a bag in the cloakroom of Charing Cross railway station, run by the South

Eastern Railway Company. On depositing his bag and paying two pence he received a ticket.

On the front it said "see back". On its back, it stated that the railway was excluded from

liability for items worth £10 or more. Mr Parker failed to read the clause as he thought the

ticket was only a receipt of payment. However, he admitted that he knew the ticket contained

writing. Mr Parker's bag, which was worth more than £10, was lost. He sued the company.

The question of law put to the court was whether the clause applied to Mr Parker. At trial the

jury found for Mr Parker as it was reasonable for him not to read the ticket.

17

Judgment

Divisional CourtLord Coleridge CJ, Brett J and Lindley J decided in favour of Mr Parker,

upholding the jury award. Lindley J remarked,

Court of Appeal

The majority of the Court of Appeal held there should be a retrial. They said that if Mr Parker

knew of the conditions he would be bound. If he did not know, he would be bound if he was

given the ticket in such a way as amounted to "reasonable.

18

5.0 CONCLUSION

Railway Act 1991, describes more on the guidelines in the railway industry, it is to

maintain the safety and rights of consumers involved. This act also provides protection for the

transport of goods by rail, not only for goods but also for the passengers that used the rail

transport. This act also as the rules and regulation in a certain country to control some of the

major problem in the railway industry. Based on the act used are on the Accidents and the

Offences And Penalties shows for whom this act will effect and for which parties that should

take responsible if incident happen. The accident are told more on the loss, hurt or damage,

and the offence and penalties, more focus on the improper use of emergency signal, causing

train to stop, for negligent act, compounding of offences and lots more.

This act give full protection towards the user so that there will be no dangerous

problem occurs and if it does, they will get punishment towards the action that the involved

parties have done. With the enforcement of this act, railway industry will be more secure for

future users and for long term period.

19

Refereces

Laws Of Malaysia Act 463. Railways Act 1991. Published ByThe Commissioner Of Law Revision, MalaysiaUnder The Authority Of The Revision Of Laws Act 1968.In Collaboration WithPercetakan Nasional Malaysia Bhd2006

Casebrief. Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co. Retrieved 28 March 2015 fromhttp://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/the-negligence-issue/pokora-v-wabash-ry-co/

British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. v. Loach (1916) . 1 April 2015 from http://faculty.oxy.edu/whitney/classes/ec319/readings/cases/tort/bcelectricrailway_v_loach_brief.htm

Parker -v- South Eastern Railway Co; CA 1877 Retrieved 2 April 2015 from http://swarb.co.uk/parker-v-south-eastern-railway-co-ca-1877/

20