Rundle v State Rail Authority of New South Wales

[2002] NSWCA 354

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Carrier of passengers
5. › Scope of duty
6. › Whether duty extends to dangers arising from extraordinary and reckless use of carriage by passenger
7. › Whether duty to prevent self-inflicted harm from deliberate dangerous conduct
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Standard of care
5. › Calculus of negligence
6. › Magnitude of risk
7. › Probability of occurrence
8. › Expense and difficulty of alleviating action
9. › Conflicting responsibilities of defendant
10. › Whether reasonable person would have responded to risk
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Self-inflicted harm
5. › Whether duty of care exists to prevent persons from inflicting harm on themselves
6. › Reckless conduct by plaintiff of full understanding

Quick Take

A carrier of passengers owes a duty to exercise care in relation to dangers likely to arise from the ordinary use of the carriage, not from extraordinary, reckless or tortious use by passengers. A 15-year-old who deliberately squeezes through a train window to spray graffiti is not owed a duty to be protected from the consequences of that conduct, even where the window could have been modified to prevent passage. The question whether Modbury Triangle principles apply to a plaintiff's own criminal conduct (as distinct from third-party criminal conduct) was expressly left open.