Case studies

• Case study: London and north eastern railway co vs Berriman (1946)

  Mr B was a railway worker who was hit and killed by a train while he was doing maintenance work on a railway line. Mrs B’s wife claimed damages from the company under the fatal accidents act. This act required the railway company to provide a look out man whilst someone was “repairing or relaying” the railway. The literal rule was applied and it was found that Mr B was maintaining the lines not repairing them, so Mrs B didn‘t get compensation. The company was found not guilty.
• What rule was applied in Mr Berriman’s case?

  The literal rule
• Sigsworth (1935): the son murdered his mother who had not made a will so normally her state would’ve been inherited by her next of kin (administration of justice act 1925). There was no ambiguity in the words but the court wasn’t prepared to let a murderer benefit from the crime. It was held that the literal rule shouldn’t be applied. Instead, the golden rule was used to prevent the absurdity of the son inheriting.
• What rule was applied in sigsworth’s case?

  The golden rule
• Which act did mrs b try claim compensation from?

  The fatal accidents act
• What act stated that usually, the next of kin would receive the parents inheritance if no will was made

  Administration of justice act 1925