Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas (1888) 13 App Cas 222

What are the facts of the case?

Mary Coultas, her husband James Coultas and her brother John Wilson were travelling in a buggy from Melbourne to Hawthorn. When they arrived at a level crossing, the gatekeeper opened the gate and let them in.

The gatekeeper then started to walk across the railway line while James followed in his buggy. When James was around 3 or 4 yards behind him in the buggy, the gatekeeper suddenly turned round and said, ‘For God’s sake, go back the train is coming’, or ‘For heaven’s sake, go back the train is coming’.

As it would not have been safe to turn back, the gatekeeper opened one of the gates and James drove through it. Fortunately, it did not hit their buggy. They narrowly escaped being hit by the train as the buggy was inside the gates when the train passed, and the train went past the back of the buggy.

When Mary Coultas saw the train approaching, she fainted into her brother’s arms. She suffered nervous shock. As a result, she lost her unborn baby and developed impaired memory and sight.

Her and her husband brought a case against the gatekeeper’s employer, Victorian Railway Commissioners. They argued the gatekeeper’s negligence was the cause of her nervous shock. They claimed for damages for the harm caused to her and the expenses incurred by James Coultas as a result of her being unwell.

What did the defendants argue?

One of the arguments put forward by the Victorian Railway Commissioners was that because the alleged shock that Mary Coultas suffered was brought about without any physical contact, the claim was too remote for them to be expected to pay damages for them.

Who won the case at first instance?

At first instance the Coultas won the case. The Victorian Railway Commissioners then appealed. The appeal was dealt with in the Supreme Court of the colony of Victoria.

Who won in the Supreme Court of the colony of Victoria?

The Coultas were also successful with the appeal in the Supreme Court of the colony of Victoria. An appeal was then brought to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

What was decided in the Privy Council?

The Privy Council said Mrs. Coultas’ nervous shock was not a natural and reasonable result of the gatekeeper’s negligence. Her claim failed because it was too remote.

What is the significance of this decision?

The judgement confirmed damages could not be recovered for injury caused when no physical impact was made as a result of another’s negligence. The judgement showed the court’s fear of opening the floodgates to cases involving people bringing claims for similar types of cases.

Watch a summary of this case here.