How so? I genuinely find it an interesting subject. The BTP are generally coached that when it comes to any matters arising to a train in service, they need to be in conversation with the guard, or driver if it's a DOO service. They don't generally have the authority to dictate to the traincrew, though it might be said to be unwise in the same fashion for the traincrew to disregard their advice - and personally, I wouldn't.
Surely as a railway employee if someone genuinely poses a risk to the safety of others on the network I have the right to expect the Police to protect me and others and remove them from the train (if that means deploying a riot squad, so be it), rather than resort to giving those who might upset them an upgrade to first class for which they've not paid?
Again, purely hypothetical - I would quite happily be concerned with getting myself and others back in one piece.
The key issue here is that the passengers were acting under instructions from authorised officers of the railway to sit there and those instructions were given for reasons of safety.
That forms part of the context by which the standard of care exercised by the train manager must be judged.
And ultimately, in a situation like this, a constable trumps the train manager. In a general legal sense at least. Operationally there may of course be consequences if the train manager doesn’t play ball such as cancellation of the train, but in the circumstances as described I can’t imagine the TOC would be impressed by such behaviour.
Liability of the guard here meant in civil (negligence) terms rather than in the criminal sense.
Agreed. Potentially a couple of other quirky things too depending on the specific location and fact pattern.
Not to be ruled out, but equally seems a bit of a stretch. If a guard, following company instructions in the ordinary course of their employment, asks someone to sit in the correct (by their ticket) part of the train, and the passenger ends up being assaulted by another passenger, it would be a high threshold to establish proximate cause. There are certainly good policy reasons why that guard *shouldn’t* be found liable.
Even if they were potentially liable, it’s highly doubtful anyone would think it was worth suing a railway guard as an individual. Vicarious liability of the company all the way in cases like this.
(The subject of negligent causation brings back happy memories. The Wagon Mound, Palsgraf, late nights in the law library struggling through Lunny & Oliphant on Torts etc.)
Generally, I would agree.
I wouldn’t expect ‘just following the revenue protection policy, guv’ to carry much weight though. It is the direction by BTP which makes this case interesting.
On a practical level, I think you would simply sue both and let them argue amongst themselves. And on one level there would be a certain vindictive satisfaction for some litigants in being able to get a charge over the train manager’s house or to send in the bailiffs even if no actual cash was forthcoming. I have a client at the moment which has made clear to us that it’s not interested in the money (a trifling amount in the grand scheme of things) so much as setting an example ‘pour encourager les autres’.
I shall say no more lest we derail the thread further though.