AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'A Conductress Should Not be a Wet-nurse'

16th April 1965, Page 32
16th April 1965
Page 32
Page 32, 16th April 1965 — 'A Conductress Should Not be a Wet-nurse'
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

HOW far should a bus conductress go in her duties towards her passengers? This question was raised at the Glasgow Sheriff Court last week during the hearing of a case in which a housewife. Mrs. Theresa Collins McConnachie, claimed 12.000 from the Central S.M.T. Co. Ltd. for alleged loss and suffering after an accident in Motherwell. The housewife alleged that she was on the platform of the defendant's bus and intended to get off. The bus stopped at or near a bus stop. but suddenly moved forward, without warning, throwing her off balance. She said that she fell from the bus and was dragged along for a short distance, injuring her knees, and as a result was off work for 13 weeks.

Mrs. McConnachie alleged that it was one of the duties of a conductress to control the movement of passengers in the bus and to warn them not to get off when the bus was not at a stopping place. This submission was an offence against all reason and commonsense, said Sheriff-sub. F. Middleton. To make a bus conductress " wetnurse " her passengers by telling them not to leave the bus between stops was going far beyond the limits of the law, he claimed. With the exception of this allegation. Sheriff Middleton allowed the claimant's case to go to proof on May 14.

Dealing with the alleged negligence of the driver, Sheriff Middleton said that when a bus driver stopped his vehicle near a stop the probability of passengers alighting was not something he was entitled to ignore. He thought this aspect of the claimant's case was entitled to go to proof.

The Sheriff also rejected the claimant's objection to the relevancy of the defendant's pleadings. He said that the claimant had referred to the defendant's failure to answer certain calls to supply information which might help her case. "1 do not think the defender is obliged to supply his opponent with ammunition, and this plea is quite without foundation ", he asserted.

Central S.M.T. claimed that Mrs. McConnachie tried to get off the bus whilst it was moving forward to its correct stance. It was her duty to have regard for her own safety.


comments powered by Disqus