## Facts

- A fatal derailment occurred at Staplehurst on the South Eastern Railway while track repairs were underway near a bridge.
- Benge, a foreman of plate-layers, was responsible for deciding when rail removal/replacement would occur and for directing effective warning signals to approaching trains.
- Benge was provided a timetable to plan the work around train movements but misread it and allowed rails to be taken up too close to an expected train’s arrival, leaving insufficient time to replace them.
- Warning procedures were defective: the engine-driver did not receive sufficient or effective warning of the track gap.
- Evidence indicated a flagman sent to warn trains did not go far enough down the line to provide adequate stopping distance.
- The engine-driver was also alleged to be inattentive in keeping a lookout.
- A passenger train reached the section where rails had been removed, ran off the line, and multiple passengers died; Benge and Gallimore were indicted for manslaughter on multiple counts.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may be convicted of manslaughter when other persons’ negligence also contributed to the deaths.
2. Whether the defendant’s negligence must be the sole cause of death, or whether it is enough that it was a material and substantial contributing cause.

## Decision

- The court instructed that Benge could be found guilty of manslaughter if the jury found his negligence was a material and substantial cause of the accident and resulting deaths.
- The negligence of the flagman and engine-driver, if any, did not by itself relieve Benge of liability where Benge’s negligence materially contributed to the fatal outcome.
- The existence of an inspector’s general control did not shift criminal responsibility away from the foreman whose operational decisions and omissions materially contributed to the accident.

## Legal Principles

- For manslaughter by negligence, the defendant’s conduct need not be the sole cause of death; it is sufficient if it is a material and substantial cause.
- Concurrent negligence by others ordinarily does not break the chain of causation; it does not operate as an intervening cause merely because it also contributed or because the harm might have been avoided with greater care by others.
- Individual criminal responsibility may attach to a subordinate operational actor despite higher-level supervision when the actor has relevant duties and his breach materially contributes to the prohibited result.

## Conclusion

The case stands for the proposition that, in negligent manslaughter, causation is satisfied where the defendant’s breach is a material and substantial cause of death, even though other negligent acts also contribute to the fatal result.


Regina v. Benge, 176 Eng. Rep. 665 (Maidstone Crown Ct. 1865)