Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The question remains whether the defendants discharged their duty as bailees after the fire had been discovered. Their " obligation included not only the duty of taking all reasonable precautions to obviate these risks, but the duty of taking all proper measures for the protection of the goods when such risks ... had actually occurred ": see Brabant & Co. v. King (1895) A.C. 632 at p. 640.

12. Millard, the driver, says that when the fire was discovered there was no other course but to run into Varangaum station and detach the waggon. The danger of taking on the waggon to Bhusawal has been explained to be the possibility of distortion of the shape of the iron waggon by the fire causing a derailment, and on the evidence I think it was prudent to detach the waggon at Varangaum. It was also reasonable* to shunt the waggon on to the nearest siding. It was reasonable to open the doors to try and turn the cotton out on to the platform. It was reasonable in the first instance to try to extinguish the fire by water from the engine. When no more of the engine water was available and the driver had only enough left to take his train into Bhusawal, the Station Master tried to render the water of the nearest well available by wiring to Bhusawal for a ' fire pipe' which he says means a pump -for taking out water. He sent this message at 4-10 1. e. approximately at the time the train left Varangaum for Bhusawal and it d not appear to me that the evidence establishes up to this file any negligence or breach of duty on the part of the defendent or their servants. It is from this point that the inaction of the defendants' servants is open to criticism. Bhusawal is a large junction 8 miles distant from Varangaum. The Bhusawal Station Master says that throughout the day there are duplicate engines with steam up there, and that he had a hose 250 feet in length which he could have sent to Varangaum. The Traffic Manager, Mr. Rumboll, says the defendants keep an efficient fire hose and hand power pump fire engine at Bhusawal and that the assumption is that the pump is capable of sucking for the length of the hose taking into consideration the depth of the well. It may be assumed therefore that at 4-30 the time when the Varangaum Station Master's message was received there was a duplicate engine under steam which could have at once conveyed the hand fire engine with 250 feet of hose to Varangaum in 20 minutes. What did the Station Master do 1 He did nothing. His evidence is that the wire was brought to him by the signaller, on which he went to the telegraph and called up the Varangaum Station Master, by what is known as a practice message, and asked if there was any water at Varangaum j a reply was received that there was a well about 250 yards from the waggon and that the water was 50 or 40 feet from the surface, he then wired that it was useless to send the fire engine down as it would not draw the water at that depth. The first time this practice message was mentioned in connection with the case was in the answers to interrogatories on the 27th January 1910 when the Deputy Traffic Manager deposed that he was informed by the Station Master-Bhusawal that he received the first telegram from Varangaum about 17 o'clock i. e. 5 p. m. and thereupon communicated by telegraph with the Station Master at Varangaum and ascertained that the nearest well was about 200 yards from the waggon and that the water was 25 feet from the surface. It is to be noted that the distance of the well and the depth of the water had increased in the recollection of the Bhusawal Station Master by the time he gave his evidence. The Varangaum Station Master was not asked in examination-in-chief as to any such communication but in cross-examination said that between telegrams 34 and 35, which was sent 4 hours later, the Bhusawal Station Master asked him by practice message whether he had water at his place. In re-examination the not was left untouched but in answer to the Court the witness lid: "I sent practice messages on the day of the fire between 6 P. M. and of r.m. at night. First 1 sent a practice message to Bhusawal. I don't remember the time. I said, are you making any arrangements about water ? I can't give any idea what time that was. Then Bhusawal asked me how far off the water was. That was about 8 or 9 p. m. I replied saying that one well was at the distance of 200 yards and another at 25001-300 yards". It will be seen that this story does not tally with that of the Bhusawal Station Master either as to the first sender of a practice message or the hour at which the Bhusawal message was sent. The telegram No. 3^ is inconsistent with either story of the practice message. The Bhusawal Station Master admits that this telegram (No. 35) does convey to his mind that the Varangaum Station Master did not at that time know that the fire engine would be no good. I am unable to accept the story of the practice message. The trying Judge was not satisfied with the evidence of the Station Masters as to the messages actually sent but sees no reason to doubt the broad fact that the question of sending the pump from Bhusawal to Varangaum was considered and the conclusion come to that it would be useless to do so. I am, however, unable to reconcile this view with the telegram No. 35 and the admission of the Varangaum Station Master that when he sent it off he still thought there was time to save some of the cotton and therefore wired ' arrange sharp '. But, even if the view of the trying Judge upon this point be accepted the defendants have to meet the difficulty caused by the proof that the well referred to by the Varangaum Station Master was only 53 feet from the nearest railway siding. He believed that with a hose and pump he could put out the fire by water from that well. If he misled the Bhusawal Station Master as to the distance and so caused that officer to refuse his request for the appliances the defendants are responsible, for they do not establish that they took the care a reasonable man would have, taken in trying to save his own goods. If an engine had been sent with the pump and hose it could have been used to shunt the waggon with the burning cotton on to the siding near the well and even if as is. deposed to the engine would then have been nearest to the dead end of the siding we are not told what harm would be done by leaving it there till the fire should be extinguished. The Bhusawal Station Master says he never considered the question of sending an engine for "the waggon containing the burning cotton and d. not consult the Varangaum engine driver (Millard) about i^ It appears to me upon the evidence that the Bhusawal Static>s Master was negligent and but for his negligence an engine and appliances might have been soon at Varangaum with the help of which much of the loss would have been avoided. I am, therefore, of opinion that the appeal should be allowed.