Bressington v Commissioner for Railways (NSW)

Florence Mabel Bressington, as the widow of Baden John Bressington, sued the Commissioner for Railways (NSW) for damages arising from her husband's death. Mr. Bressington, a fireman employed by the Commissioner, was killed in a shunting yard when he was struck by moving brake-vans. The deceased and the engine-driver, in accordance with their duties, were crossing several railway lines in the busy shunting yard to reach the loco depot to sign off. While crossing one line, brake-vans on that line were propelled forward by ballast trucks, striking the deceased. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the Commissioner for Railways to warrant a finding of liability. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Commissioner had failed in his duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his employee, Mr. Bressington. This involved considering whether the absence of a specific warning system for moving trucks, or the method of shunting employed, constituted a breach of that duty, and whether the deceased, as an experienced railway employee, had assumed the risks associated with the shunting yard.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Dixon, McTiernan, and Williams JJ., held that there was no evidence to establish negligence on the part of the Commissioner. Their reasoning focused on the established practices within the railway system. The court noted that it was well-known that trucks in the shunting yard could move at any time without warning unless marked with a red signal, and the trucks involved in this incident were not so marked. Expert evidence indicated that the shunting procedure was standard practice and that a system of warning personnel at every stationary truck would not be practicable. The court concluded that the deceased, being an experienced railway employee familiar with the yard, was aware of these inherent risks. Starke J. dissented, finding that there was evidence of negligence in the respondent's failure to provide warnings or other protections for employees crossing the sidings.

The High Court, by majority, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the lower court were upheld.