Franklin v Victorian Railways Commissioners - [1959] HCA 48

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Fullagar, Taylor and Windeyer JJ.

FRANKLIN v. VICTORIAN RAILWAYS COMMISSIONERS

(1959) 101 CLR 197

14 September 1959

Negligence

Negligence—Passenger in railway carriage—Standing near door—Sudden jolt—Passenger thrown from carriage—Sufficiency of evidence to establish breach of duty—Res ipsa loquitur

Decisions

September 14.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
DIXON C.J. This appeal arises from an action brought in the county court at Melbourne to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants are the Victorian Railways Commissioners and the plaintiff's injuries were sustained by his falling from a passenger train in which he was travelling. He complains that he was precipitated through an open door of the train by reason of a jolt which should be attributed to some negligence on the part of the servants of the commissioners. The accident occurred on 25th October 1956. At that time the plaintiff, a youth of about fifteen or sixteen years who sued by his next friend, was employed in the Postmaster-General's Department as an apprentice panel beater and also attended the Melbourne Technical College. He lived with his parents at Blackburn, an eastern suburb of Melbourne, and he was on his way home by train: the 4.48 p.m. from Flinders Street Station. The train was travelling between the Camberwell and East Camberwell stations a little after five o'clock in the afternoon. It was what is called a "Tait" carriage with sliding doors which, the evening being warm, were open. The seats were occupied and the plaintiff was standing. He was near the left-hand door, left-hand that is to one facing the direction in which the train was moving. The train was going up a bank, though not a very steep bank. Witnesses say the train gave a jolt and the plaintiff fell through the door. The nature of the jolt and its severity were described in varying terms by the witnesses and the plaintiff's case rested entirely or almost entirely upon the inference of negligence which he claimed should be drawn from the incident itself. The plaintiff suffered from retrograde amnesia and could give no account of what had occurred. He described how he was accustomed to hold on when standing in a Tait carriage but he could not say he was doing so. He had, however, been observed by other witnesses grasping a luggage rack a little before the accident. There was no evidence of any specific defect in the train or carriage or the mechanism associated with the movement of the train. Photographs of the track were put in evidence and neither from them nor from any other source did any fault in the track appear. It all seemed to come back to the nature and severity of the sway or jolt of the train as a reason for inferring negligence and it was upon that footing the case went to the jury. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 2,351 pounds 4s. 7d. damages. They answered Yes to a specific question whether…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Franklin v Victorian Railways Commissioners and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1959] HCA 48
Decision Date: 14 September 1959

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Franklin v Victorian Railways Commissioners*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning a claim for damages for personal injury. The appellant, Mr. Franklin, had suffered injuries while employed by the Victorian Railways Commissioners. The central dispute revolved around whether the Commissioners had breached their duty of care to Mr. Franklin, thereby causing his injuries.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Commissioners had provided a safe system of work for their employees, specifically in relation to the method of unloading certain materials. The court also had to consider whether the Commissioners were vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees, if any, in carrying out the work. A further issue was whether Mr. Franklin had contributed to his own injuries through contributory negligence.

The court's reasoning focused on the employer's non-delegable duty to provide a safe system of work. Applying established principles of negligence, the judges examined the evidence presented regarding the procedures in place at the time of the accident. They considered whether those procedures were reasonably adequate to prevent foreseeable harm to workers. The court also analysed the concept of vicarious liability, determining whether the actions of any negligent employees could be attributed to the Commissioners. The principles of contributory negligence were also applied to assess whether Mr. Franklin's own conduct had played a role in causing his injuries.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Commissioners had been negligent in failing to provide a safe system of work. However, the court also found that Mr. Franklin had been contributorily negligent. Consequently, the damages awarded to Mr. Franklin were reduced to reflect his share of responsibility for the injuries sustained.

Orders