§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the recommendation made by the Railway Conference in 1908 for the modification of the owner's risk conditions in contracts for the carriage of milk cans in passenger trains, to the effect that nothing in such agreement should exempt the railway company from any liability which 871 they would otherwise incur in respect of loss suffered by the consignor through non-arrival of milk at the station of destination, or through delay exceeding twenty-four hours in transit thereto, except on proof that such loss or delay had not been caused by negligence or misconduct on the part of the company or their servants, was construed by the Board to mean that the onus of proof of wilful misconduct would, after such modification, no longer be upon the consignor, but that the onus of proof that no negligence or misconduct of any kind had been committed would thereafter be upon the railway company if the latter was to claim exemption from liability; and whether any of the railway companies had adopted, or were to the knowledge of the Board taking steps to adopt, the above recommendation?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe new form of words regarding the liability of railway companies for loss or damage to milk conveyed at owners' risk expressly states that in certain specified cases the company will remain liable except on proof that the loss or damage, etc., was not due to the negligence or misconduct of themselves or their servants, and I should certainly understand that in such cases the onus of proof is on the railway company. In other cases the conditions are unchanged, and in such cases the burden of proving that loss or damage was due to wilful misconduct of the company's servants will, I imagine, still rest with the person claiming compensation. It will, of course, be understood that the Board of Trade have no authority to give a binding legal interpretation of the words in question. The Railway Clearing House informed the Board of Trade in November last that effect would be given throughout Great Britain to these recommendations of the Railway Conference on and from the 1st January.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTMay I ask whether it is perfectly clear in which of the two cases referred to in the answer to the question the onus of proof is on the consignor, and in which it is on the railway companies?
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not know. I should imagine it would be perfectly clear. I do not think the Board of Trade are arbitrators in the matter. It would be another authority.
§ Mr. REESIs it a fact that the Board of Trade have interpreted this agreement in a sense hostile to the railway companies in so far as their liability is concerned?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo.
§ Mr. REESIf they did not, then in that case what validity has the interpretation of the Board of Trade in that behalf?
§ Mr. TENNANTI can only repeat what I said in my answer. It should be understood that the Board of Trade have no authority to give a binding legal interpretation of the words.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTMay I ask whether there is any serious doubt of the Board of Trade interpretation of it, and whether this matter requires judicial interpretation?
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not think there is any doubt about it.
§ Mr. VERNEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House how far railway companies are responsible for negligence or undue delay causing deterioration or damage to milk while on the premises belonging to the companies, and on whom the burden of proof of such damage rests; and whether it is in any, and what, way affected by the Railway Conference of 1908?
§ Mr. TENNANTWhen milk is consigned at the railway company's risk rate, the company concerned is under the ordinary carrier's liability for the due delivery of the traffic. When it is consigned at owner's risk the companies have until recently made it a condition that they shall not be liable for loss of or damage to the traffic except where such loss or damage has been due to the wilful misconduct of the company concerned or its servants. The Railway Conference recommended certain amendments of these conditions, as shown in page 6 of their Report, a copy of which I am having sent to my hon. Friend, and these recommendations-have been adopted by the railway companies of Great Britain. The effect of the amendments appears to be to transfer to the railway company in certain specified cases the burden of proof as to the responsibility for damage.