Analysis of Liability in an example case concerning a train collision.

Have a little read: ... A train travelling at high speed passes through a green signal and collides with a train coming in the opposite direction on the same track. The driver of the first train is killed, together with a number of passengers, and many more are injured. A subsequent inquiry reveals that the cause of the crash is a faulty signal due to inadequate maintenance. Maintenance is carried out by Engineering plc, an independent firm who do the work under contract to the Railway Authority. Amy goes to identify her dead relatives on the train and suffers severe shock. Ben was on the train and has suffered injuries and shock that prevent him going to work for six weeks. Clare lives in a house adjacent to where the train crashed. She looked out of her window as her husband David rushed over to help people trapped in the wreckage. Both David and Clare continue to have nightmares as a result of what they witnessed. Advise (a) The Railway Authority (b) Engineering plc regarding the nature and extent of their liability, if any, towards the parties mentioned in this situation. Part (a) Engineering plc holds a contract with The Railway Authority to carry out maintenance work and in this case, inadequate maintenance could constitute a breach of contract. In order to advise The Railway Authority, it is necessary to point out that Engineering plc in this situation, stand as an independent contractor. ' An independent contractor is by definition a person whose methods and modes of work are not controlled by the person who employs him, and this being so it would be unfair to give an employer general liability for the torts of such a contractor' 1 (Keenan). However, further investigation regarding vicarious liability means The Railway Authority could yet; be qualified for joint liability. Vicarious liability 'the liability imposed on one person (D) for the tortious act or omission of another (X) which causes loss to a third person (P)'2 (Mullis & Oliphant). It simply means the situation where one is liable for a tort committed by someone else. The vicarious liability of employers should not be extended to the contractor totally and this issue had arisen from the case of Salsbury v Woodland [1970] 1 OB 324. The case stated the two classes, which there are circumstances that the employer is in the breach of primary, which is owed to the contractor. Usually an employer is only liable for the negligence of the contractor in the following two classes; i) Under extra hazardous acts or ii) Non-delegability of duty of care. This is where the liability for the tort is strict. iii) Negligence whereby selecting an incompetent contractor and failure to supervise. The courts tends to refuse to allow a plaintiff to recover damages against the employer of an independent contractor yet, there have been cases which has been allowed. In Wilson and Clyde Coal Co V. English [1938] AC 57 where Lord Wright stated the threefold, 'the provision of a competent staff of men, adequate material, and a proper system and effective supervision'3. If negligence does not occur as the result of the task in which the Engineering plc was employed to do, then the Rail Authority should not be liable. In this case, Engineering plc had failed to perform and as a result, a consequential damages to the public and the Railway Authority itself. Unless The Railway Authority could prove that they have taken reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor (Engineering plc) as well as to