Dean v Railtrack Plc & Anor

A claimant’s subsequent conduct does not necessarily break the chain of causation where a defendant’s employee negligently permits a train to depart while the claimant remains in a dangerous position. The court may rely on a commonsense inference that an effective warning or intervention would have prevented the accident, without resolving every detail of the claimant’s movements. Contributory-negligence apportionment is primarily a matter for the trial judge. An appellate court will rarely interfere, particularly where the claimant has been found more to blame than the defendant but the defendant’s breach remains causative.

Jennifer Mary Dean suffered serious injury after falling into the gap between a departing train and the platform at Paddington Station. Holland J found Great Western Trains Limited one-third responsible, found the claimant two-thirds responsible, and found Railtrack Plc not liable.

Great Western Trains renewed its application for permission to appeal. It challenged the finding that the railway employee’s failure to ensure that the claimant moved well back before signalling the train’s departure caused the accident, and challenged the apportionment of responsibility. The central issues were whether the claimant’s subsequent actions broke the chain of causation and whether the apportionment disclosed a proper basis for appellate intervention.

Application refused. Lord Justice Tuckey refused permission to appeal and ordered that there be no order for costs.

1. The trial judge was entitled to find that the railway employee acted negligently by giving the final departure signal while the claimant remained in a position of potential danger. He was entitled to conclude that the claimant should have been made to move well back from the train before the signal was given.
2. The claimant’s conduct after the train began moving did not create a legal break in causation. The evidence about her precise movements was not entirely consistent, and the Court of Appeal would not attach decisive importance to those details. The trial judge had considered whether the claimant had disengaged sufficiently from the departing train to focus on her own safety. His conclusion that an effective intervention would have broken the claimant’s concentration and avoided the accident was a permissible inference.
3. Apportionment of contributory negligence is substantially a matter for the trial judge. The claimant had ignored warnings, followed the moving train and failed to watch where she was going, but the judge had considered those matters and was entitled to make a jury assessment. There was no logical basis for holding the claimant wholly responsible where the defendants’ breach remained causative. The two-thirds apportionment was not susceptible to appellate interference.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
• Queen’s Bench Division: Holland J found Great Western Trains Limited one-third liable, the claimant two-thirds liable, and Railtrack Plc not liable.