Standing v seating: legal points

[dieselbashdave]

Hi folks,

This is probably going to be a slightly controversial topic and I'm posting it out of curiosity and not to stir up the whit (replace the "w" with an "s" if you want to ).

My background legal knowledge is two modules of business and contractual law on 1st and 2nd year degree level on my business management degree.

My question is this:

*Ticket does not = seat
*In an accident (Cannon Street in the '80s?) standing pax are liable to be seriously injured/killed as they are thrown around

What happens when standing pax on an overcrowded train (no seats available) get injured in an accident and their vulture-for-hire, sorry lawyer... , claim that if the pax were sitting down their injuries would be less/non-existent?

Would the TOC be able to say "well a ticket does not mean a seat" or would the lawyer scream "negligence and lack of duty of care under common law" as it is known that standing pax are at risk of serious injury/death (Cannon Street buffer-hit).

Personally, given that I am no legal expert, I would say that anyone who stands on a train is under "volenti non fit injuria" (their actions mean that they are responsible for the delict/harm they encounter). The TOC is under no obligation to give someone a seat and a ticket is for merely being allowed on board; if you want a seat then reserve one!

It's a slightly obscure and bizarre question I know, but it's one I've always wondered about for a few weeks now ever since sitting my business contractual relationships exam! Maybe I have too much time on my hands

PS: If this is in the wrong subforum could a mod put it into the correct one? Cheers!

PPS: I don't know much about English law as I'm in Scotland incidentally.

 

[rail-britain]

It doesn't make any real difference under Scots or UK Law
The contract, with the travel ticket, is simply to travel as permitted
It just so happens that trains have seats, whether the passenger sits in one is up to them
The second part is the seat reservation which guarantees a seat for a specific train

If there not enough seats then it would be passengers decision whether to travel or not
The train design itself and the nature of the accident really determines whether a sitting or standing passenger would result in injuries

As was noted in the Grayrigg accident three passengers were not seated at the time but suffered little discernably different injuries from those that were seated
The greatest injuries were those passengers in the coach that rotated and rolled over

 

[dieselbashdave]

Cheers,

That's basically what I thought, you're on board a train and the ticket is simply authorisation to travel and it doesn't matter whether yer parked on yer jacksie or stood on yer two pins as far as the TOC is concerned.

I never knew that about Grayrigg, the standing pax being the same, injury wise, as seated ones. The Pendo seems pretty safe, only 1 died which is pretty good going in a 100mph flip-over-onto-side. Pity the HST wasn't as good with that one in Berks with the FGW and that focker and his Mazda in 2004

Derail of thread slightly (no pun intended): what about NR moving points from near level crossings in order to reduce the risk of a serious derailment. AFAIK the HST flipped over because it got stuck on the points and this caused the rest of the crash. Without the points, it was supposedly just going to slide across the ballast and come to a halt with a dented front end.

It's what put me off being a driver, you're the first person to encounter something going wrong and the most likely to be killed or badly hurt.

 

[Helvellyn]

To swing it round, if it were ever hypothetically upheld that a passenger was injured because they did not have a seat, and the the TOC should have ensured they did have one, wave goodbye to the walk-up railway! In fact, probably wave goodbye to a lot of the passenger rail industry.

 

[dieselbashdave]

To swing it round, if it were ever hypothetically upheld that a passenger was injured because they did not have a seat, and the the TOC should have ensured they did have one, wave goodbye to the walk-up railway! In fact, probably wave goodbye to a lot of the passenger rail industry.

This is very true. It'd probably collapse in the end, commuter trains in and out of London would vanish I'm sure.

On a sidenote I wish that Britain didn't adopt the American "everyone else is responsible for my actions bar me and I'm a greedy money-grabbing attention-seeker" guff and sue for this and that

 

[route:oxford]

It doesn't make any real difference under Scots or UK Law

UK Law!!!

Not on the British Isles.

 

[justinsteam]

It doesn't make any real difference under Scots or UK Law

UK law is made up of English law, Northern Ireland law and Scots law, therefore, I think you mean English law.

 

[rail-britain]

UK law is made up of English law, Northern Ireland law and Scots law, therefore, I think you mean English law.

No, Scots and UK Law, not English Law

 

[jopsuk]

No, Scots law, English Law (which covers Wales as well- which is not a Kingdom) and Northern Irish law. The three are seperate jurisdictions, and there is no "UK Law". At all. Full stop.

 

[michael769]

There are 3 distinct legal systems in Britain:

The Law of England and Wales
The Law of Scotland
The Law of Northern Ireland

The term UK Law is applied to those statutes that have equal force in all 3 Legal systems.

 

[moonrakerz]

and there is no "UK Law". At all. Full stop.

just EU Law !!!!

 

[rail-britain]

There are 3 distinct legal systems in Britain:

The Law of England and Wales
The Law of Scotland
The Law of Northern Ireland

The term UK Law is applied to those statutes that have equal force in all 3 Legal systems.

Exactly, hence the reference, it makes no difference whether the claim is made under Scots Law or UK Law

 

[Crossover]

To swing it round, if it were ever hypothetically upheld that a passenger was injured because they did not have a seat, and the the TOC should have ensured they did have one, wave goodbye to the walk-up railway! In fact, probably wave goodbye to a lot of the passenger rail industry.

I think that is the way the likes of Eurostar work (though in that case I believe it is so in the event of an incident, everyone can fit into half the train) and quite a few European HS services I believe are also reservation compulsary.

If there was to be a ban on standing passengers, it would also mean waving goodbye to the bus network as we know it too as lots of buses have standing passengers)

 

[rail-britain]

it would also mean waving goodbye to the bus network as we know it too as lots of buses have standing passengers)

Bus capacity is defined though, with X number seated and X number standing
Train capacity is not, although the number of seats is known, you can put as many passengers on as you want, until the doors close

 

[Clip]

Hi folks,

This is probably going to be a slightly controversial topic and I'm posting it out of curiosity and not to stir up the whit (replace the "w" with an "s" if you want to ).

My background legal knowledge is two modules of business and contractual law on 1st and 2nd year degree level on my business management degree.

My question is this:

*Ticket does not = seat
*In an accident (Cannon Street in the '80s?) standing pax are liable to be seriously injured/killed as they are thrown around

What happens when standing pax on an overcrowded train (no seats available) get injured in an accident and their vulture-for-hire, sorry lawyer... , claim that if the pax were sitting down their injuries would be less/non-existent?

As has been mentioned by myself on here before - an overcrowded train offers more protection for person standing all squashed together then it would those sitting down - who would fare worse ironically.

There was a study about it and CGI stuff to show how this was in the event of a crash.

so then would the coin be flipped in your hypothetical question as to whether the people sat down could sue them because their injuries would've been less if they hadn't let them sit down?

 

[daikilo]

Hi folks,

This is probably going to be a slightly controversial topic and I'm posting it out of curiosity and not to stir up the whit (replace the "w" with an "s" if you want to ).

My background legal knowledge is two modules of business and contractual law on 1st and 2nd year degree level on my business management degree.

My question is this:

*Ticket does not = seat
*In an accident (Cannon Street in the '80s?) standing pax are liable to be seriously injured/killed as they are thrown around

What happens when standing pax on an overcrowded train (no seats available) get injured in an accident and their vulture-for-hire, sorry lawyer... , claim that if the pax were sitting down their injuries would be less/non-existent?

Would the TOC be able to say "well a ticket does not mean a seat" or would the lawyer scream "negligence and lack of duty of care under common law" as it is known that standing pax are at risk of serious injury/death (Cannon Street buffer-hit).

Personally, given that I am no legal expert, I would say that anyone who stands on a train is under "volenti non fit injuria" (their actions mean that they are responsible for the delict/harm they encounter). The TOC is under no obligation to give someone a seat and a ticket is for merely being allowed on board; if you want a seat then reserve one!

It's a slightly obscure and bizarre question I know, but it's one I've always wondered about for a few weeks now ever since sitting my business contractual relationships exam! Maybe I have too much time on my hands

PS: If this is in the wrong subforum could a mod put it into the correct one? Cheers!

PPS: I don't know much about English law as I'm in Scotland incidentally.

You raise several points within your question:
1) overcrowded is when there are more persons on board than the design limit, which I assume is clearly indicated for each vehicle close to the doorway. This is in itself an interesting question as it may be physically possible for more persons to board certain vehichles than their design qualification. In such a case it is not evident in my opinion whether the operator or the "overload" passemger is responsible.
2) does your ticket entitle you to a seat: no, unless you have reserved one
3) do the seats as currently designed offer specific safety in the case of an accident: depends on the forces incurred, rearward facing seats are designed to take-out certain longitudinal forces such as a head-on collision.
4) is seated safer than standing? Notionally yes, but it is not unknown for persons seated behind tables to have abdominal injuries. Equally, a person standing close to a vestibule wall may have equivalent protection.
5) is it right that rail companies can offer travel without a seat and even less without any form of seat or other restraint when e.g. road or air transport is required to provide such?

Personally, I have travelled my whole life on trains, buses, air and cars. I always feel the desire to buckle up, except on trains, metros and trams. If I stand on a bus, tram or metro in potential conflict with other traffic, it is always where I can and do hold on.

I would like to think that on rail, the probability of a deceleration so rapid that a standing passenger would incur permanent physical injury is so low that it should not be a concern for you or any legal council. It will happen, occasionally, but at a frequency which will be considered by the nation as acceptable. If you do not like the last sentence, I suggest you reserve a rear-facing seat.

 

[krus_aragon]

There are 3 distinct legal systems in Britain:

The Law of England and Wales
The Law of Scotland
The Law of Northern Ireland

They're still very similar at the moment, but England and Wales have started to diverge in the past five years, and the rate is likely to increase now that Cardiff Bay have direct law making powers.

 

[rail-britain]

As has been mentioned by myself on here before - an overcrowded train offers more protection for person standing all squashed together then it would those sitting down - who would fare worse ironically

Works both ways

Example 1 : 3 seated passengers and no standing passengers
Example 2 : 76 seated passengers and 45 standing passengers

The coach derails, impacting a platform, rolling through 45 degrees and shearing one corner into a steel structure
Example 1 : all 3 passengers are ejected from their seats, with minor injuries
Example 2 : 50% of the seated passengers suffer minor injuries, 12 of the standing passengers suffer serious injuries, and 1 standing passenger suffers a total limb injury (amputation)

Overcrowded offers more protection?
More likely the chances of an injury are reduced, but the likelihood of a more serious injury is increased
Hence when you compare similar accidents but with different % of passengers carried; Clapham, Newton, and Bellgrove

 

[dieselbashdave]

It's interesting that an "overcrowded" train would offer more protection, is that because there are more people for the energy of the accident to be absorbed into so the individual loads are therefore less as there's a larger surface area to absorb the energy? Of course I might be barking up the wrong tree as I never did physics sadly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They're still very similar at the moment, but England and Wales have started to diverge in the past five years, and the rate is likely to increase now that Cardiff Bay have direct law making powers.

Wonder what would happen if Alex Salmond got his way and Scotland broke off from the rest of the UK. It'd be intresting to see what our laws compared to English law would be like.

 

[daikilo]

It's interesting that an "overcrowded" train would offer more protection, is that because there are more people for the energy of the accident to be absorbed into so the individual loads are therefore less as there's a larger surface area to absorb the energy? Of course I might be barking up the wrong tree as I never did physics sadly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Wonder what would happen if Alex Salmond got his way and Scotland broke off from the rest of the UK. It'd be intresting to see what our laws compared to English law would be like.

I assume an overcrowded train (or carriage) is one with more passengers (or weight) on board than the design load. It does not matter whether there is 1 or 1500, legally it is overcrowded and the issue is then how and why. Interestingly, I could argue that an overcrowded carriage does not imply that a train was out of limits.

 

[Clip]

Works both ways

Example 1 : 3 seated passengers and no standing passengers
Example 2 : 76 seated passengers and 45 standing passengers

The coach derails, impacting a platform, rolling through 45 degrees and shearing one corner into a steel structure
Example 1 : all 3 passengers are ejected from their seats, with minor injuries
Example 2 : 50% of the seated passengers suffer minor injuries, 12 of the standing passengers suffer serious injuries, and 1 standing passenger suffers a total limb injury (amputation)

Overcrowded offers more protection?
More likely the chances of an injury are reduced, but the likelihood of a more serious injury is increased
Hence when you compare similar accidents but with different % of passengers carried; Clapham, Newton, and Bellgrove

The theorising behind it was that as passengers that are stood up and squashed together gives little room for them to be thrown around the carriage as the person next and so on dissipates the force of the crash through out those standing so they wont move very far.

rather then those sat down who will not be as protected and thus get thrown from the seat.

Im not disputing anything that has happened in crashes in the past merely commenting on what a scientific study showed.If i could find it id show you, but alas, i cant.

 

[daikilo]

The theorising behind it was that as passengers that are stood up and squashed together gives little room for them to be thrown around the carriage as the person next and so on dissipates the force of the crash through out those standing so they wont move very far.

rather then those sat down who will not be as protected and thus get thrown from the seat.

Im not disputing anything that has happened in crashes in the past merely commenting on what a scientific study showed.If i could find it id show you, but alas, i cant.

What if 2 or 10 or 30 passengers are standing and not in close contact?

d

 

[dieselbashdave]

What if 2 or 10 or 30 passengers are standing and not in close contact?

d

I'd imagine that they'd get thrown around?

 

[Swanny200]

Ok... Here is a hypothetical one, you are on an EC service, you have reserved your seats from EDN to KGX, you show up to find a full service and your seat has been taken by some yob who refuses to let you have the seat. The train manager and his cronies refuse to help as (i) the train is far too busy and he has to do other jobs or (ii) he may be wary of approaching said yob for fear of assault. What happens then if you are in a crash and are severely injured because you were forced to stand up because of a 3rd party.

for one who do you hold responsible, the yob... the TOC... the train manager for not doing his job or all 3??? And would there be a case as you had reserved seats which were clearly marked on your booking and on the seats.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What is it with the obsession in this country of having to have having someone to blame, or if not, having a scapegoat?

 

[GB]

There seem to be alot of ifs, buts and maybes in this topic. The fact is if you are injured in a train crash or derailment you will no doubt get compenstation...whether you were sitting down or standing up.

 

[driver9000]

1) overcrowded is when there are more persons on board than the design limit, which I assume is clearly indicated for each vehicle close to the doorway. This is in itself an interesting question as it may be physically possible for more persons to board certain vehichles than their design qualification. In such a case it is not evident in my opinion whether the operator or the "overload" passenger is responsible.

The only place you find any reference to capacity on a rail vehicle is on the data panel on the vehicle end. This only makes reference to seating capacity and there is no reference to standing capacity.

 

[LE Greys]

Surely any laws relating to the railways come from Westminster, at least up until 1998. There were no passenger railways in 1707.

 

[jopsuk]

Surely any laws relating to the railways come from Westminster, at least up until 1998. There were no passenger railways in 1707.

You are right, but Westminster when legislating for the whole of the UK has to produce three different versions of the same law, as the legal language and structure is different. They can't simply copy and paste and add the "(Scotland)" bit to the title. Despite the union of the parliaments, Scotland and England retained entirely different legal systems between 1707 and 1998. One of the odder aspects of the original act of union.

 

[Old Timer]

In my experience of having dealt with collisions between trains, as far as possible the BT Police and Railway staff will take details of the passengers and the tickets they have.

Problems only then arise when people are unable to produce a ticket or ticket issue records at their supposed station of departure do not support what they are saying.

There are recorded instances of people claiming to have been on a train and then Police enquiries subsequently revealing afterwards that this was not the case.

There seems to be this perception that the bona fidas of passengers who claim to have been travelling on a particular train are not checked out - they are.

This explains why I have continually pointed out in the past the need to have a ticket before travelling whenever possible, and the possible consequences of not having one.

In Court one would have to demonstrate that one was not evading payment, especially when ticket issuing facilities were available as the TOC Solicitors would certainly be looking to mitigate compensation. NOT having a valid ticket in these circumstances can therefore place a person in a less secure position.