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

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

The act of protruding an arm from the window of a railway carriage does not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law that precludes recovery; rather, whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care is a factual matter for the jury, who may consider all of the circumstances, including the layout of the car, presence or absence of warnings, and likely risks, in determining if the plaintiff acted unreasonably.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: William Cashmore; Respondent; Defendant: Chief Commissioner for Railways and Tramways (New South Wales)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 1915
Procedural Posture
Negligence—action for Personal Injury / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Supreme Court set aside; jury verdict for plaintiff restored.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Railway Accidents, Personal Injury, Standard of Care
Tort Law Negligence Contributory Negligence Railway Accidents Personal Injury Standard of Care

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Cashmore

Appellant; Plaintiff

Chief Commissioner for Railways and Tramways (New South Wales)

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence—action for Personal Injury / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether protruding one's arm from a railway carriage window is per se contributory negligence precluding recovery for injuries
  2. 2 Whether the question of contributory negligence in such circumstances is one for the jury or for the court as a matter of law

Ratio Decidendi

The act of protruding an arm from the window of a railway carriage does not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law that precludes recovery; rather, whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care is a factual matter for the jury, who may consider all of the circumstances, including the layout of the car, presence or absence of warnings, and likely risks, in determining if the plaintiff acted unreasonably.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Supreme Court set aside; jury verdict for plaintiff restored.

Orders

  • Verdict of jury for plaintiff reinstated
  • Order appealed from discharged