SRA v Mayle

In *SRA v Mayle*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a negligence claim brought by a passenger who sustained injuries when a projectile broke a train window. The passenger alleged that the State Rail Authority (SRA) had failed to take reasonable care for his safety.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the injury to the passenger was reasonably foreseeable by the SRA and, consequently, whether the SRA ought to have taken steps to mitigate such a risk, specifically by fitting protective screens to the train windows. The Court also considered whether the evidence presented supported the findings made at trial regarding foreseeability and the adequacy of the SRA's precautions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances. The Court reasoned that while it was foreseeable that a window might be broken, the specific type of injury sustained by the passenger, caused by a projectile entering the carriage, was not a risk that the SRA was obliged to guard against. The Court found that the evidence did not establish that the SRA had failed to take reasonable care for the safety of passengers. The appeal was allowed with costs, and orders were made accordingly.