EAGLE V. SYDNEY & SUBURBAN BLUE METAL QUARRIES LTD. 90/1943

EAGLE V. SYDNEY & SUBURBAN BLUE METAL QUARRIES LTD. 90/1943

There was evidence before the jury of negligence on the part of the driver, as he knew that Dalloway might have been behind him and failed to take sufficient care in looking out before reversing. This was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

Parties
Appellant (defendant): Norman Harold Eagle; Respondent (plaintiff): Sydney & Suburban Blue Metal Quarries Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 1944
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales Judgment Refusing New Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer's Indemnity, Duty of Care, Onus of Proof
Tort Law Workers' Compensation Negligence Employer's Indemnity Duty of Care Onus of Proof

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Harold Eagle

Appellant (defendant)

Sydney & Suburban Blue Metal Quarries Limited

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales Judgment Refusing New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant driver
  2. 2 Whether the balance of probability was equally consistent with negligence by the deceased as with negligence by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence before the jury of negligence on the part of the driver, as he knew that Dalloway might have been behind him and failed to take sufficient care in looking out before reversing. This was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.