Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales

Case [2015] HCA 31

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ,
BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ

COREY TRAVIS FULLER-LYONS BY HIS TUTOR
NITA LYONS  APPELLANT

AND

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES  RESPONDENT

Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales

[2015] HCA 31

2 September 2015

S81/2015

ORDER

1.Appeal allowed with costs.

2.Set aside orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 9 December 2014 and, in lieu thereof, order that the appeal to the Court of Appeal be dismissed.

3.Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal to determine the costs of the appeal to that Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation

C T Barry QC with G J Davidson for the appellant (instructed by AC Lawyers)

R J Burbidge QC with A C Casselden for the respondent (instructed by Hicksons Lawyers)

Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales

Torts – Negligence – Personal injury – Liability – Inferential fact-finding – Where appellant suffered severe injuries when he fell from train operated by respondent – Where primary judge found appellant fell from train as consequence of respondent's negligence – Whether New South Wales Court of Appeal erred in rejecting primary judge's finding on basis of alternative hypotheses about appellant's fall, not entailing negligence by respondent, being equally open – Whether Court of Appeal erred in rejecting primary judge's finding on basis appellant failed to exclude other possible explanations for known facts – Whether Court of Appeal erred in rejecting primary judge's finding on basis appellant failed to exclude hypothesis not explored in evidence.

Words and phrases – "inferential fact-finding".

  1. FRENCH CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ.   On 29 January 2001, Corey Travis Fuller-Lyons suffered severe injuries when he fell from a train.  Corey was eight years old at the time.  Corey brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Beech-Jones J) by his tutor claiming damages in negligence against the State of New South Wales ("the State") as the legal entity responsible for the operation of the rail network. 

  2. There was no direct evidence of the circumstances of Corey's fall.  The ultimate conclusion of negligence rested on inferential fact-finding.  The primary judge found that, shortly before he fell, Corey had become trapped between the doors of the train before it left Morisset Station[1].  His Honour held the State vicariously liable for the negligent failure of a railway employee to keep a proper lookout before signalling to the guard that it was safe for the train to depart from the Station[2].  Judgment was entered for Corey in the amount of $1,536,954.55. 

    [1]Fuller-Lyons v State of New South Wales (No 3) (2013) Aust Torts Reports ¶82‑150 at 66,753 [6]; [2013] NSWSC 1672.

    [2]Fuller-Lyons v State of New South Wales (No 3) (2013) Aust Torts Reports ¶82‑150 at 66,753 [7],…

Continue reading Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales [2015] HCA 31
Case
[2015] HCA 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal concerning a personal injury claim. The appellant, Corey Fuller-Lyons, suffered severe injuries when he fell from a train operated by the respondent, New South Wales. The primary judge had found that Corey fell from the train as a consequence of the respondent's negligence.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the primary judge's finding of negligence. Specifically, the High Court considered whether the Court of Appeal was justified in overturning the primary judge's conclusion by relying on alternative hypotheses about Corey's fall that did not involve negligence by the respondent, or by asserting that the appellant had failed to exclude other possible explanations for the known facts, including hypotheses not explored in the evidence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Court of Appeal had erred in its approach to inferential fact-finding. The Court held that the primary judge's finding of negligence was open on the evidence presented. The Court of Appeal had impermissibly substituted its own view for that of the primary judge by focusing on alternative hypotheses that were not necessarily supported by evidence or by requiring the appellant to exclude every conceivable, but unevidenced, possibility. The High Court emphasised that a plaintiff is not required to exclude every other possible explanation for an event, but rather to establish that the defendant's negligence was a probable cause of the injury.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed with costs, that the orders of the Court of Appeal be set aside, and that the appeal to the Court of Appeal be dismissed. The matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal to determine the costs of that appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed with costs.

2. Set aside orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 9 December 2014 and, in lieu thereof, order that the appeal to the Court of Appeal be dismissed.

3. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal to determine the costs of the appeal to that Court.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appeal must be allowed. To explain why that is so, it is necessary to refer to the evidence in some detail. The trial was heard over seven days. A number of issues that were explored in evidence may be put to one side because they fell away during the hearing or because they are the subject of unchallenged findings. Relevantly, the evidence established the following facts. The facts Corey and his older brothers, Dominic (aged 11 years) and Nathan (aged 15 years), boarded an intercity electric V-set train bound for Newcastle at Central Railway Station, Sydney. The train consisted of four double-decker cars. Corey and his brothers travelled in the lead car. External doors were located at the front and back of the car on the eastern (right-hand) and western (left-hand) sides. Each set of doors opened into a vestibule. The front and rear vestibules were separated from the saloon compartments of each deck by internal doors. Nathan and Dominic were seated in the saloon compartment. When they last saw him, Corey was in the front vestibule. A guard, Mr Meiforth, was stationed in the rear car. The train left Morisset Station at around 12:07pm. Corey fell from the train near Dora Creek at approximately 12:09pm. This was about 15 minutes after Corey parted from his brothers, leaving them in the saloon compartment. At the time Corey fell, the train was negotiating a right-hand bend at about 100 kilometres per hour. Corey landed on the western side of the train line. The western doors of the train were adjacent to the platform at Morisset Station. The four pairs of external doors of the lead car were hung from the top. They were suspended from rollers that ran on an overhead track attached to the car's superstructure. The base of each door formed an inverted "U" which ran over a bar inside the threshold of the door on the floor. The doors were inset by what the primary judge estimated to be "about six inches" from the exterior of the car[7]. They were fitted with electro-pneumatically controlled locking motors which were centrally operated by the guard. When locked, the doors could only be opened by the guard engaging the door release switch. Once the switch was engaged, passengers were able to open the doors with the door handles. [7]Six inches converts to 152.4mm. The adoption of the locking door system was intended to eliminate the known risk of passengers falling from the train. It was a controversial policy since, in the event of a loss of power or an accident, passengers remained locked in the cars until rescued. Mr Meiforth checked the external doors of each of the four cars at the terminal before the train commenced its journey. The doors were closed and Mr Meiforth conducted a "walk-through", giving them a shake to see if they could be opened. They were working properly and Mr Meiforth did not detect any sign of interference with them. After Corey's accident, a railway officer tested the doors of the lead car. The officer attempted with the aid of an assistant to force the doors apart after they had been closed. The locking mechanism was working correctly on each pair of doors. However, the officer observed signs of disturbance with both sets of doors at the front of the car. On the western side, when locked, each door was about 50mm off plumb at the base. This created a gap of about 100mm at the base of the doors. Corey could not have fallen through this gap. On the eastern side, the doors stalled momentarily during closing, creating a gap of about 350mm, and then continued to close and lock.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FRENCH CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ

Full text does not contain this section.