Mitchell v Clancy [1960] HCA 74

Mitchell v Clancy [1960] HCA 74

The plaintiff contravened reg. 13 because the defendant's car was on his right and both vehicles were approaching and travelling on the intersection in circumstances where they might arrive at the same point simultaneously. Proceeding across the intersection without knowing whether the car on his right had stopped amounted to negligence that contributed to the collision and to the plaintiff's damage. The Full Court's apportionment, reducing damages by thirty-five per cent, and its refusal to interfere with the low but not appealably inadequate award of general damages, should not be disturbed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Action in Negligence for Personal Injury Arising From a Collision Between a Bicycle and a Motor Car / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Damages' 'breach of Traffic Regulation' 'right of Way at Intersections' 'assessment of General Damages']
['torts' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'traffic Law'] ['contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Damages' 'breach of Traffic Regulation' 'right of Way at Intersections' 'assessment of General Damages']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Action in Negligence for Personal Injury Arising From a Collision Between a Bicycle and a Motor Car / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Full Court was right to reverse the trial judge's finding that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence." "Whether the plaintiff's contravention of reg. 13 of The Traffic Regulations contributed to his damage." 'Whether the reduction of damages by thirty-five per cent should be disturbed.' 'Whether the award of general damages was so low as to warrant appellate interference.' 'Whether the appeal was competent or special leave should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff contravened reg. 13 because the defendant's car was on his right and both vehicles were approaching and travelling on the intersection in circumstances where they might arrive at the same point simultaneously. Proceeding across the intersection without knowing whether the car on his right had stopped amounted to negligence that contributed to the collision and to the plaintiff's damage. The Full Court's apportionment, reducing damages by thirty-five per cent, and its refusal to interfere with the low but not appealably inadequate award of general damages, should not be disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']