STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v WILLIAMS [1991] NSWCA 259

STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v WILLIAMS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLY, CLARKE and HANDLEY JJA 27 August 1991, 27 August 1991

[1991] NSWCA 259

APPEAL — alleged improper admission of evidence — train driver overshot platform and opened doors — plaintiff overheard statements of other passengers suggesting no possibility of disembarking on platform — plaintiff injured jumping from train — statements said to be improperly admitted because of incorrect application of res gestae rules — held, statements admissible as part of transaction which was matter in issue (Adelaide Chemical and Fertilizer Co Ltd v Carlyle (1940) 64 CLR 514 per Dixon J) — further ground of inadmissibility said to be that statements were irrelevant to plaintiff's cause of action — held, content of statements relevant to causal connection between alleged breach of duty and damage, and, in regard to claim of contributory negligence, to reasonable prudence of plaintiff's actions.

NEGLIGENCE — damage — causation — whether defendant's breach of duty was cause of injuries — breach was overwhelming cause, and also a cause to which liability should attach (Barnes v Hay (1988) 12 NSWLR 337).

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — defendant submits standard of reasonable foreseeability applied to contributory negligence should be same as that applied to negligence — held, standards distinct as negligence alone dependent upon breach of duty to one other than oneself.

EXCESSIVE DAMAGES — whether reduction on future economic loss for vicissitudes insufficient and general damages outside reasonable range — no mistake or unreasonableness on evidence.

EXCESSIVE DAMAGES — defendant asserts principles on interest rates under MBP(SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 6S ALJR 203 should be applied to general damages — case decided at first instance before Gogic — point not argued in lower court — possibility of further evidence had point been taken — as no other basis for reassessment in appeal, no basis for applying Gogic in circumstances.