Wilkie v London Passenger Transport Board Case Digest
2
Wilkie v London Passenger Transport Board Court of Appeal 01 January 1947 Case Analysis Where Reported [1947] 1 All E.R. 258; 63 T.L.R. 115; (1947) 111 J.P. 98; [1947] L.J.R. 864; 177 L.T. 71 Case Digest Subject: Road traffic Keywords: Accidents; Exclusion clauses; Passengers; Passenger vehicles Summary: Public service vehicles; rights of holder of free pass Abstract: The action of an intending passenger in boarding an omnibus is something done not by virtue of a contract but by virtue of the implied licence given him by the bus company to get to the position where he may make a contract with the company. A person holding a free travelling pass boards a bus as a pass-holder. The plaintiff, a person holding a free travelling pass, was injured by the negligence of the bus company by being thrown on to the ground in the act of boarding the bus. The pass contained a condition exempting the company from liability for injury however caused. The plaintiff contended that the condition did not come into operation until he was being conveyed as a passenger is conveyed. Held, the condition covered the case. The plaintiff further contended that the pass constituted a contract of conveyance and that the condition there was rendered void by s.97 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930(20 & 21 Geo. 5, c. 43). Held, the pass was merely a revocable licence without contractual effect and s.97 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, did not apply thereto.
-
Upload
nicole-yau -
Category
Documents
-
view
3.370 -
download
49
Transcript of Wilkie v London Passenger Transport Board Case Digest
Wilkie v London Passenger Transport Board
Court of Appeal
01 January 1947
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[1947] 1 All E.R. 258; 63 T.L.R. 115; (1947) 111 J.P. 98; [1947] L.J.R. 864; 177 L.T. 71
Case Digest
Subject: Road traffic
Keywords: Accidents; Exclusion clauses; Passengers; Passenger vehicles
Summary: Public service vehicles; rights of holder of free pass
Abstract: The action of an intending passenger in boarding an omnibus is something done not by virtue of a contract but by virtue of the implied licence given him by the bus company to get to the position where he may make a contract with the company. A person holding a free travelling pass boards a bus as a pass-holder. The plaintiff, a person holding a free travelling pass, was injured by the negligence of the bus company by being thrown on to the ground in the act of boarding the bus. The pass contained a condition exempting the company from liability for injury however caused. The plaintiff contended that the condition did not come into operation until he was being conveyed as a passenger is conveyed. Held, the condition covered the case. The plaintiff further contended that the pass constituted a contract of conveyance and that the condition there was rendered void by s.97 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930(20 & 21 Geo. 5, c. 43). Held, the pass was merely a revocable licence without contractual effect and s.97 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, did not apply thereto.
