Cashmore v Chief Commissioner for Railways and Tramways (NSW) [1915] HCA 27

REPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN THE

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1915.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

CASHMORE : 3 } \ : . APPELLANT; PLAINTIFF,

AND

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR RAIL- WAYS AND TRAMWAYS (NEW SOUTH ; ResronvEnt. WALES). 3 2 ' J ' DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME, COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES. :

Negligence—Action for personal injury—Contributory negligence — Railway— H.C. or A. Passenger protruding his arm from window of railway carriage—Injury to 1915.

arm by open door of passing train, — Sypney,

The fact that a passenger in a railway train protrudes his arm from @ 4ppiz8,9, 15.

window of the carriage in which he is travelling is not of iteelf negligence on

his part which disentitles him to recover damages for injury to his arm which Sie pte

is caused by its being struck by the door of a passing train negligently left Gavan Duffy JJ.

open, and which, but for his arm being so protruded, he would not have

received ; but it is a question for the jury whether, in so protruding his arm,

he failed to take such care to avoid danger from passing objects as was

reasonable in the circumstances.

VOL. XX. 1

H. C. or A. 1915. w

CaSHMORE v.

Cuter Com-

MISSIONER FoR Ratt- WAYS AND TRAMWAYS

.S.W.)

HIGH COURT (1915.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales : Cashmore v. Commis- sioner for Railways, 14 S.R. (N.S.W.), 61, reversed.

Apprat from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court by William Cashmore against the Chief Commissioner for Railways and Tramways of New South Wales to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff's arm received when he was travelling as a passenger in a railway carriage, and alleged to have been caused by the arm having been struck by the door of a passing train which had negligently been left open. The action was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff for £100. The verdict was a general verdict for the plaintiff, but, in answer to a question put to them by the learned Judge, the jury found that the plaintiff's elbow was outside the window when it was injured. The defendant moved to set aside the verdict, and to enter a verdict for the.defendant or for a new trial. On the hearing of the motion, the Full Court ordered that the verdict should be set aside, and that a verdict should be entered for the defendant: Cashmore v. Commissioner for Railways (1).