Piening v Wanless [1968] HCA 7

Piening v Wanless [1968] HCA 7

A party's election not to base its case on res ipsa loquitur due to prevailing case law, and the absence of an error or miscarriage in the trial, does not justify setting aside a verdict solely because later appellate authority reversed that law; the unexplained failure of a car's steering mechanism, without further evidence, does not itself amount to evidence of negligence by the driver.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'res Ipsa Loquitur' 'personal Injury' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'trial Procedure' 'appeals']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal Division)

  1. 1 ['Whether a new trial should be ordered where the plaintiff chose not to rely on res ipsa loquitur due to a prevailing but subsequently overruled authority' 'Whether the failure of steering mechanism alone provides evidence of negligence by the driver']

Ratio Decidendi

A party's election not to base its case on res ipsa loquitur due to prevailing case law, and the absence of an error or miscarriage in the trial, does not justify setting aside a verdict solely because later appellate authority reversed that law; the unexplained failure of a car's steering mechanism, without further evidence, does not itself amount to evidence of negligence by the driver.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal Division) set aside' 'Order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs']