HARRISON v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1992] NSWCA 106

HARRISON v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1992] NSWCA 106

On the trial judge's findings, the defendant driver's failure to keep a proper lookout and to give way was a contributing cause to the accident and the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, and no valid defences of volenti non fit injuria or contributory negligence were established; therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Harrison; Respondent/defendant: Government Insurance Office of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiff; damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Causation, Appellate Review

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

Parties

Harrison

Appellant/plaintiff

Government Insurance Office of New South Wales

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding no causation between the negligence of the driver and the plaintiff's injuries.
  2. 2 Scope of appellate rehearing where credibility is not at issue.
  3. 3 Application of volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

On the trial judge's findings, the defendant driver's failure to keep a proper lookout and to give way was a contributing cause to the accident and the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, and no valid defences of volenti non fit injuria or contributory negligence were established; therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiff; damages awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Set aside the judgment of Sully J in favour of the defendant