Goryl v Greyhound Australia Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning a claim for damages for personal injury. The appellant, Mr Goryl, had been a passenger on a coach operated by the respondent, Greyhound Australia Pty Ltd, when he sustained injuries. The dispute centred on whether Greyhound Australia owed Mr Goryl a duty of care and, if so, whether that duty had been breached.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a common carrier, such as a bus company, owes a duty of care to its passengers to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable harm caused by third parties. This involved considering the scope of the duty of care owed by carriers to passengers and the foreseeability of the particular risk of harm that materialised.

The High Court held that a common carrier owes a duty of care to its passengers to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable risks of injury, including those posed by the conduct of other passengers or third parties. The Court reasoned that the relationship between a carrier and its passenger is one of proximity, giving rise to a duty to take reasonable care for the passenger's safety. The foreseeability of the risk of harm is a crucial element in determining whether this duty has been breached. The Court ultimately found that, on the facts, the risk of harm to Mr Goryl was not sufficiently foreseeable to establish a breach of duty by Greyhound Australia.