In what circumstances will a plaintiff be liable for injuries sustained by a train that has broken down?

In Watson v. North British Ry. Co., supra, cited with approval in the Bridge River case, the president said at p. 638: “In the present case the train consisted of the plant, partly of the railway company and partly of the pursuer, and its safety depended on both being in good working condition. There was no presumption that if anything went wrong with the plant it was the fault of the railway company, whereas a breakdown of the plant affords a presumption of liability in the carriage of passengers. Therefore I think that in the contract of haulage, where the injury is occasioned by a breakdown of the plant, the burden of providing fault is distinctly on the person who alleges it, and so in this case on the pursuer.”