Case Name: State Rail Authority of NSW (New South Wales) v Chu
Ratio Decidendi: A public authority can be held accountable in negligence for injuries caused by faulty public infrastructure. And an intervening criminal act by a third party (novus actus interveniens) can break the chain of causation between the defendant’s negligence and a subsequent injury, unless the criminal act was foreseeable as a result of the initial negligence.
| Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal |
| Citation: [2008] NSWCA 14; [2008] Aust Torts Reports 81-940 |
| Judges: Hodgson JA, Bell JA, Mathews AJA |
| Decision Date: 6 March 2008 |
| Areas of law: Negligence; Contributory negligence; Causation; Novus actus interveniens; Assessment of damages; Assault |
Facts (State Rail Authority of NSW v Chu)
On December 29, 2002, Yu-Mei Chu tripped on damp stairs at Sydenham Railway Station and fractured her ankle. She claimed negligence owing to the slippery yellow-painted nosings on the stairs. She was later sexually assaulted by an acquaintance, which she claimed was a foreseeable consequence given her decreased mobility from the fall.
The Trial Court found the State Rail Authority negligent for failing to maintain safe stair surfaces. Ms Chu was awarded damages totalling $239,405, including those linked to the assault.
Issues
Was the State Rail Authority careless in maintaining the stairs? Did Ms Chu contribute to her fall? Is it possible to legally connect the following sexual assault to the Authority’s initial negligence?
Court of Appeal Decision
The Authority failed to provide safe stairs. Expert testimony revealed that the painted stair edges were very slippery when wet. The Authority did not contest the evidence or provide its own.
Further, the Court found Ms Chu was being careful and no negligence was proven on her part.
The Court determined the sexual assault was a new intervening act, breaking the causal chain. It was the deliberate, criminal act of a third party, and not a foreseeable consequence of the Authority’s negligence. The assault was outside the scope of liability of the Rail Authority (s 5D Civil Liability Act 2002 – test for causation).
Damages were reduced to $217,324 (from $239,405). Damages linked to the sexual assault were removed, while there was a correction of a miscalculation in future economic loss, increasing that component.
Mathews AJA at p [53]:
“From a factual point of view there was little evidence to support his Honour’s finding on the causation issue. It was a matter which the respondent was required to prove, and in my view the preponderance of evidence was that the assault would probably have occurred whether or not she had been injured in the fall.”
References:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2008/14.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW:
- De Jager v Payneham & Magill Lodges Hall Inc (1984)
- Burton v Davies [1953]: False Imprisonment in Tort Law
- Lessons on Unreasonable Interference: Christie v Davey [1893]
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.