Evidence—Proof of identity of object—Writing on label of jar—Neither label nor jar produced—Admissibility of oral evidence of the writing on the label—Extent of the best evidence rule in relation to documents.

Decisions

1962, February 9.
The following written judgments were delivered : -
DIXON C.J. This appeal is brought as of right by the Commissioner for Railways for New South Wales. The Commissioner complains of a judgment or order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissing an appeal by the Commissioner from a verdict for 5,365 pounds recovered by the respondent in an action under the Compensation to Relatives Act, 1897-1953 (N.S.W.). The respondent is a widow whose husband was killed in an accident on 21st September 1956. The accident occurred at the Town Hall railway station at 6 p.m. or shortly afterwards as the deceased was attempting to board an outgoing train southbound from No. 2 platform. (at p539)

2. No complaint was made by the Commissioner of the amount at which the damages were assessed. His complaint is that at the trial certain evidence he tendered touching the sobriety of the deceased was rejected. That means that he sought a new trial upon a ground affecting liability only. In the Supreme Court, however, his contention failed that the verdict was vitiated by the wrongful rejection of some of his evidence. Hence this appeal. (at p539)

3. The widow's declaration was framed in negligence in and about the care, control and management of the railway premises, a train and carriages, so that the deceased whilst attempting to board the said train and carriages was thrown down whereby he was wounded and injured and afterwards died. The particulars said that the deceased received the injuries from which he died when he fell whilst attempting to board an electric train. Unfortunately it is necessary to give a somewhat full account of the circumstances of the accident as well as of the evidence bearing upon it. Without such an account the points on which the decision turns cannot readily be disposed of. They are not all points that have any general importance to command attention. (at p539)

4. The deceased, who at the time of his death was aged fifty-two, and his wife were spending a holiday with their married daughter at Villawood. On the day of his death he and his son-in-law, whose name is Budd, had gone to Sydney where they went about attempting to find in some shop a particular tool which the deceased desired to obtain. The couple had called at various hotels and had consumed sufficient alcohol to make it a question at the trial whether the deceased and his son-in-law were seriously affected by drink. Shortly before 6 p.m. they came down the ramp at the Town Hall station and took up a position to catch a train…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Young

Details

AGLC: Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Young [1962] HCA 2
Case: [1962] HCA 2
Decision Date: 9 February 1962

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commissioner for Railways (NSW) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of the respondent, Mr Young. The dispute concerned the respondent's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by a train while walking across a railway line at a place where the public was accustomed to cross, but which was not a designated crossing.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Commissioner owed a duty of care to the respondent, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court considered whether the Commissioner had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to persons who, to the Commissioner's knowledge, habitually crossed the railway line at that point. The court also had to consider the extent to which the respondent's own conduct contributed to his injuries.

The majority of the High Court held that the Commissioner did owe a duty of care to persons who habitually crossed the railway line at that point, even though it was not a public crossing. This duty arose from the knowledge that such crossings were occurring and the foreseeable risk of injury. The court found that the Commissioner had failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate this risk, such as providing adequate warning signals or barriers. The court also considered the respondent's contributory negligence, finding that while he had been negligent in crossing the tracks, this did not entirely absolve the Commissioner of liability. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders