Caterson v Commissioner of Railways (1973) 128 CLR 99
Tort; Negligence; the duty of care; foreseeability of harm; establishing a real risk of harm.
Facts: While helping a passenger carry their luggage onto the train, Caterson left his 14 year-old son on the platform. The train began to leave the station without warning and Caterson, anxious not to leave his son alone, jumped off the train while it was moving. As a result Caterson suffered injury. He sued the railways in Negligence.
Issue: The court considered whether the harm to Caterson was forseeable in these circumstances.
Decision: The High Court held that the harm was foreseeable.
Reason: Barwick CJ said at (101–2):
"...[L]iability in tort will be possible if the event which has occurred and the damage therefrom which the claimant has suffered were both foreseeable by the person sought to be made liable and of such a kind as he ought to have realised were not unlikely to occur, subject only to the exception constituted by the decision in Bolton v Stone [1951] UKHL 2; [1951] AC 850. Of the various possible descriptions of the event and damage, I prefer 'not unlikely to occur' because on the one hand it denies the proposition that the event or damage should be apprehended as more likely than not to occur or to be suffered and on the other hand, by its negative form, it excludes possibilities which are theoretical and unreal in all the circumstances: it accommodates the idea of a real risk or danger..."