Literal ruleRelaying repairingHouse of Lords

London and North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman

[1946] Appeal Cases 27819461 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Berriman, a railway worker, was oiling signal apparatus and maintaining the railway line. Struck and killed by a passing train. No lookout man had been posted.
Issue
Whether oiling/maintaining a railway line falls within "relaying or repairing" under the relevant railway regulations.
Held
"Relaying" means laying new track; "repairing" means fixing damaged track.
Principle
Relaying or repairing" a railway line does not include routine maintenance (oiling). Literal Rule applied strictly to deny compensation for worker killed during maintenance work.
Cite this

Facts

  • Berriman, a railway worker, was oiling signal apparatus and maintaining the railway line
  • Struck and killed by a passing train
  • No lookout man had been posted
  • Statute required a lookout man to be posted when workers were "relaying or repairing" the track
  • Widow claimed compensation arguing the employer breached the statutory duty

Issue

  1. Whether oiling/maintaining a railway line falls within "relaying or repairing" under the relevant railway regulations.

Held

  • "Relaying" means laying new track; "repairing" means fixing damaged track
  • Oiling is routine maintenance, not relaying or repairing
  • No statutory duty to post a lookout for maintenance workers
  • Compensation claim failed
  • Literal Rule applied strictly despite unjust result

Ratio decidendi

"Relaying or repairing" has a specific literal meaning (laying new track or fixing broken track) and does not extend to routine maintenance such as oiling. The Literal Rule requires this strict reading even where it produces an unjust outcome.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • The harshest Literal Rule illustration: worker dies, but literal reading denies compensation
  • Use to contrast with Mischief Rule (which would have asked: what mischief was the statute addressing?)
  • Exam trifecta: Whiteley (absurd acquittal) + Fisher (technical defence) + Berriman (unjust denial)
  • Key line: "In LNER v. Berriman (1946), the House of Lords held that oiling a railway line is routine maintenance, not 'relaying or repairing,' and strictly applied the Literal Rule to deny the widow's compensation claim."

Cite this

Citation

London and North Eastern Railway Co. v. Berriman [1946] Appeal Cases 278

Reported: [1946] AC 278; standard textbook authority. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.