SATTAR v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2001] NSWCA 44

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : SATTAR v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2001] NSWCA 44 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40823/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 5 March 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 March 2001

PARTIES : Qamar Jahan Sattar - Appellant State Rail Authority of New South Wales - Respondent JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Priestley JA at 2; Sheller JA at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT 6957/97 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Sinclair ADCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : K J Ryan - Appellant J W Dodd - Respondent SOLICITORS : Chegwidden Solicitors - Appellant Dibbs Crowther Osborne - Respondent CATCHWORDS : NEGLIGENCE - liability - passenger injured in exiting train - whether plaintiff was thrown from train or stepped off - trial Judge's directions to jury. LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules 1970 Calin v The Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd (1991) 173 CLR 33 CASES CITED: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lolomanaia v Rush (1996) 24 MVR 128 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OFAPPEAL CA 40823/98 DC 6957/97 MASON P PRIESTLEY JA SHELLER JA SATTAR v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

The plaintiff claimed that on 2 March 1989, as a consequence of the defendant rail authority's negligence, she fell from the train on which she was travelling. The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court in 1992, from where the action was transferred to the District Court.

The plaintiff claimed that she was travelling on a train scheduled to stop at Wiley Park Station, and that she was thrown off when the train did not stop but rather slowed down - with the doors open - and then sped up again. The defendant argued that the train on which the plaintiff was travelling was not scheduled to stop at Wiley Park Station and that the plaintiff in fact stepped from the moving train. The parties agreed to put the issue to the jury as a simple one of fact - if they accepted the plaintiff's account of events, the defendant was liable; but if it was found that the plaintiff stepped off the train there was no liability on the part of the defendant. The jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed on a number of grounds against the trial Judge's directions to the jury.