Jury v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) - [1935] HCA 29

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RAILWAYS

RESPONDENT. (NEW SOUTH WALES)

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Negligence-Master and servant-Fettlers' camp at side of permanent way-Access

Use of permanent way-Fettler, whilst off duty, killed by train at night-No direct evidence of accident-Provision of access-Duty of Commissioner-com Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (N.S.W.) (No. 31 of 1897).

The deceased, a fettler employed by the respondent, was, with other fettlers, encamped in one of two camps established by the respondent on opposite sides of the railway lines, on railway land near to Leura railway station. A charge made by the respondent for the use of these camps was deducted from an allowance which the fettlers were entitled to receive in addition to wages. There was no direct exit from or entrance to the deceased's camp by any public road. The nearest road was not very readily accessible. There was no water supply in this camp, and supplies had to be procured from across the railway lines or at the railway station. The fettlers also went to the township, or the station or the camp opposite upon their own business or pleasure. A ready means of ingress to and egress from the camp was by the permanent way. It was habitually used by the fettlers. One night after working hours the deceased was seen on the railway station some time before an express train passed through. After the train had passed his dead body was found on the permanent way near the station, and it was evident that he had been killed by the train. There was no direct evidence explaining how the deceased got upon the permanent way, or for what purpose he was there. The night was foggy with drizzling rain. His widow brought an action

53 CLR 274

against the respondent, alleging negligence on the ground, inter alia, that the respondent had omitted to provide for the safe passing of the deceased to and from the camp. The jury were directed, in effect, that the deceased was entitled to access to his camp by all reasonable routes, and the respondent owed a duty to him to see that any such way was as safe as it could be made by the exercise of reasonable care. The jury gave a verdict (N.S.W.).

for the respondent.

Held that the verdict should be upheld on the ground that the jury had been sufficiently directed, and (by Rich and Dixon JJ.) that a finding would have been unreasonable that the respondent had been guilty of negligence by failing to guard employees from the risk of walking on the line by providing better and more convenient access to the camps.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court) affirmed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (N.S.W.), by Eileen Beatrice Jury, on behalf of herself and her two children, against…

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 Jury v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) 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: [1935] HCA 29
Decision Date: 13 May 1935

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Jury v Commissioner for Railways (NSW)* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, the widow of a railway fettler, sought compensation for her husband's death, alleging negligence on the part of the Commissioner for Railways. The deceased fettler was killed by a train at night while in a camp provided by the Commissioner on railway land adjacent to the permanent way.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Commissioner owed a duty of care to the deceased regarding safe access to the camp, whether there was evidence of a breach of that duty, and if so, whether such breach caused the death. Specifically, the court considered whether the Commissioner was negligent in failing to provide a safe and convenient means of ingress and egress to the camp, given that the railway line was habitually used by the fettlers for this purpose and was the most accessible route.

The High Court, in upholding the verdict for the Commissioner, reasoned that while the Commissioner had a duty to take reasonable precautions for the safety of employees housed in camps on railway premises, including their approaches, the evidence did not support a finding of negligence. The court noted that the deceased was an employee and was on the employer's premises in connection with his employment, thus attracting a duty of reasonable care. However, it found that the risks associated with using the railway line at night were, to a significant extent, obvious. The court concluded that a finding of negligence would require a degree of precaution beyond what reasonable care demanded, particularly given the availability of alternative, albeit less convenient, routes and the general familiarity of railway employees with the permanent way.

The court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, finding that the jury had been adequately directed. Rich and Dixon JJ. specifically held that a finding of negligence against the Commissioner for failing to provide better or more convenient access to the camps would have been unreasonable.

Orders