Nesterczuk v Mortimore [1965] HCA 60

Nesterczuk v Mortimore [1965] HCA 60

By majority, the appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was negligent or that both drivers were negligent. Although the collision showed that one or other or both drivers must have failed to exercise due care, the trial judge was not persuaded which possibility was more probable, and an equal-blame finding would have been conjecture. The South Australian contributory negligence provision permitted reduction of damages only where the claimant's damage was proved to result partly from his own fault and partly from the fault of another; it did not relieve the appellant of proving fault by the respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Negligence Action Arising From a Motor Vehicle Collision / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Collision' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'burden of Proof' 'inference From Circumstantial Evidence' 'res Ipsa Loquitur']
['tort Law' 'negligence' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['motor Vehicle Collision' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'burden of Proof' 'inference From Circumstantial Evidence' 'res Ipsa Loquitur']

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

Negligence Action Arising From a Motor Vehicle Collision / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether negligence by the respondent, or by both drivers, could properly be inferred from the fact of the collision and the surrounding evidence.' 'Whether, where the evidence left open negligence by one driver or the other or both, the court was required or permitted to find both drivers equally to blame.' 'Whether s. 27a (3) of the Wrongs Act of South Australia justified reducing damages for contributory negligence without proof that the respondent was at fault.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was negligent or that both drivers were negligent. Although the collision showed that one or other or both drivers must have failed to exercise due care, the trial judge was not persuaded which possibility was more probable, and an equal-blame finding would have been conjecture. The South Australian contributory negligence provision permitted reduction of damages only where the claimant's damage was proved to result partly from his own fault and partly from the fault of another; it did not relieve the appellant of proving fault by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']