PRESPANOSKI v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1992] NSWCA 190

PRESPANOSKI v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

GLEESON CJ, MAHONEY, and PRIESTLEY JJA 3 July 1992, 4 August 1992

[1992] NSWCA 190

APPEAL from District Court — Plaintiff injured while alighting from train — Defendant liable in negligence. — DAMAGES — Judge did not accept plaintiff's account of the extent of her injuries and the results of them — Small verdict — Errors alleged in judge's reasons for his conclusions. — Held: Properly construed, no errors were made — If errors were made, they did not warrant retrial. — JUDGE'S COMMENTS — Right of judge to comment upon matters dealt with at the trial — Liability of comments to misunderstanding — Time and expense from such comments Nature of judgment as "professional statement of reasons directed to the parties and to the professionals who advise them'.

Gleeson CJ I agree with the judgment of Mahoney JA.

Mahoney JA On 3 June 1986 on her way to work the plaintiff was injured while alighting from an electric train at St Peters Station. Her injury was the result of the negligence of the State Rail Authority: that is not now in contest. On 13 October 1986 she commenced proceedings against the Authority. In March and later in 1990 her claim was heard by Conomos DCJ. On 3 July 1990 his Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for $4,788.86. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court against his Honour's Judgment. She claims a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

The facts of the accident are not significantly in doubt. The plaintiff was alighting from a train which had arrived at St Peters railway station. The train suddenly started and she fell, as the judge found, onto her knees. She rested on her right elbow. She was helped to her feet by a workmate.

She was able to walk to her work place, though she said she walked slowly. She was treated by the nursing sister at her place of employment and continued with her work. She was given lighter duties than she had had before. Her work, she had said, had involved work as a "table hand" on a machine "painting, making boxes". She was required to collect envelopes, two to five hundred of them, and pack them in a box, then pick up the box and carry it over to a platform. Following the accident, she continued to work with envelopes but was confined to stacking them in bundles in the manner described in her evidence.