Teubner v Humble [1963] HCA 11

Teubner v Humble [1963] HCA 11

The respondent was negligent because, despite difficult visibility, it was more probable than not that he was not keeping a proper lookout and failed to see a pedestrian whom a reasonably vigilant driver would have seen; that negligence was an effective cause of the accident. The appellant was also imprudent, but the evidence did not justify treating his conduct as reckless or nearly suicidal. Responsibility was therefore apportioned one-third to the appellant and two-thirds to the respondent. The proper total damages before reduction were £24,848 13s. 0d., yielding judgment for the appellant for £16,565 15s. 4d.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Action Arising From a Motor Vehicle Collision / Appeal and Cross Appeal From a Judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Collision' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'assessment of Damages' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'pain and Suffering' 'loss of Amenities of Life']
['negligence' 'personal Injury' 'damages' 'appellate Review'] ['motor Vehicle Collision' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'assessment of Damages' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'pain and Suffering' 'loss of Amenities of Life']

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

Personal Injury Negligence Action Arising From a Motor Vehicle Collision / Appeal and Cross Appeal From a Judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent driver was negligent in failing to see and avoid the appellant pedestrian.' 'Whether the appellant pedestrian was guilty of contributory negligence.' 'How responsibility for the damage should be apportioned under the Wrongs Act 1936-1959.' 'Whether the damages assessed by the Supreme Court of South Australia were inadequate or excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was negligent because, despite difficult visibility, it was more probable than not that he was not keeping a proper lookout and failed to see a pedestrian whom a reasonably vigilant driver would have seen; that negligence was an effective cause of the accident. The appellant was also imprudent, but the evidence did not justify treating his conduct as reckless or nearly suicidal. Responsibility was therefore apportioned one-third to the appellant and two-thirds to the respondent. The proper total damages before reduction were £24,848 13s. 0d., yielding judgment for the appellant for £16,565 15s. 4d.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order that the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia be discharged.' 'In lieu thereof find that the total damages which would have been recoverable if the plaintiff had not been at fault were the sum of £24,848 13s. 0d.' 'Adjudge that the plaintiff recover from the defendant the sum of £16,565 15s. 4d.'...