Rundle v State Rail Authority of New South Wales

The plaintiff, Rundle, brought proceedings against the State Rail Authority of New South Wales after sustaining injuries while spraying graffiti on the roof of a moving train carriage. The plaintiff had positioned himself by squeezing his upper body through an upper window of the carriage to access the roof. The court was required to determine whether the State Rail Authority owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in these circumstances, particularly in light of the plaintiff's actions which involved contravening delegated legislation.

The central legal issue was whether the State Rail Authority breached any duty of care owed to the plaintiff, considering the plaintiff's deliberate and unlawful conduct. This involved an examination of the principles established in *Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil* concerning the scope of a duty of care owed by landowners or occupiers to trespassers, and whether those principles extended to a situation where the plaintiff was not merely a trespasser but was actively engaged in a dangerous and illegal activity on the defendant's property.

The court considered that the State Rail Authority did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case. Applying the principles from *Modbury Triangle*, the court found that the Authority could not reasonably have foreseen that a person would attempt to spray graffiti on the roof of a moving train by squeezing through a window. The plaintiff's actions were described as voluntary, deliberate, and inherently dangerous, and the Authority was not required to take precautions against such extraordinary and unlawful conduct. The court concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were a consequence of his own actions, not a breach of any duty owed by the State Rail Authority.