There are two amendments in my name to this Bill. The first amendment reads:—
"Section 3. To delete paragraph (c)."
The second amendment is as follows—
"Section 3. To delete in lines 32-33 the words ‘particulars of damage so given to such railway company show that such damage,' and to substitute therefor the words ‘claim for damage in the action.'"
Both those amendments have the same purpose—to secure that in the case of a fire caused by sparks from a railway engine which does damage to a greater amount than £200 the person injured shall at least be able to recover the sum of £200. Senator Johnson and others said on the last occasion the Bill was before the House that I was probably too meticulous, and that the Bill did not need amendment. I submit that the Bill does need amendment. Section 3 of the Bill, which I propose to amend, states:—
Section 3 of the Principal Act shall not apply in respect of any action for damage by fire occurring after the passing of this Act.
I should state that the object of the Railway Fires Act of 1905 was to allow compensation for damage caused to agricultural land or agricultural crops arising from fires caused by sparks or cinders emitted by locomotive engines. Under the common law, a man whose crops were damaged by fires caused by a railway engine could bring an action, provided he could prove that the railway company was negligent. The object of the Act of 1905 was to allow a farmer to get damages to the amount of £100 without proving negligence. Under that Act, he could only get damages without proving negligence to the amount of £100, no matter what the amount of his loss was. The Act of 1905 did not apply in the case of any action for damage by fire brought against any railway company unless the notice of claim was sent to the railway company within seven days from the occurrence of the damage and particulars of the damage within fourteen days. If a farmer had a rick of hay valued £500, then within seven days he would have to send to the railway company the notice of claim, and within fourteen days he would have to send particulars of the damage. If he did those two things, he was entitled to sue for £100, and to succeed without proof of negligence. Here is how he was limited in the section:—
"This section"—that was the section giving him compensation—"shall not apply in the case of any action for damage unless the claim for damage in the action does not exceed £100."
Take the case of a man whose rick of hay was burned by a spark from a railway engine. Under the Act of 1905, he would have to send in notice of his claim and then particulars of the damage. He would have to claim the sum of £100 and no more, and without proof of negligence he could get up to £100 in damages. I am sorry that Senator Barrington is not here at the moment. It was in connection with an action arising under this Railway Fires Act that I first met Senator Barrington and learned to appreciate his splendour as a witness. Not alone was his evidence good, but it was given in a style which I have never forgotten. I think the action was in respect of cinders which fell from an engine on the famous West Clare railway. The fire-box was out of order, but the evidence was good.
Under the Act of 1905, whatever the amount of your damage, you were entitled to £100 injury to crops, without proving negligence. The first impression one gets from the new Bill is that it increases that amount to £200. Section 2 of the Bill says: "Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Principal Act shall have effect in relation to actions for damage caused by fires occurring after the passing of this Act as if the words ‘two hundred pounds' were substituted for the words ‘one hundred pounds' in that sub-section." The Bill applies the limit of £200 where £100 was the limit before. Section 3 of the Bill provides that the notice of the occurrence must be sent in writing to the railway company within seven days, and that particulars of the damage shall be sent within twenty-one days. The times there are different from those in the original Act, but otherwise the provisions are the same. The third requirement under this Bill is, as given in paragraph (c): "The particulars of damage so given to such railway company show that such damage does not exceed the sum of two hundred pounds." If, for instance, a rick of hay was destroyed, the person affected would not come within the terms of the Bill if the particulars showed the damage to exceed £200, whereas under the old Act, no matter what the amount of the damage, he could claim up to £100. This Act deprives every person who has sustained damage exceeding £200 of the benefits of the Act of 1905. That is absolutely clear on the construction of the Bill, and I do not rely on my own judgment in that. I submitted this question to other lawyers for whose judgment I have respect. Under this Bill, if the particulars show the damage to exceed £200, the claimant is outside the limitation contained here.