Davis v Bunn [1936] HCA 44

Davis v Bunn [1936] HCA 44

The court was equally divided. Starke and Dixon JJ. would have dismissed the appeal and let the new trial order stand, holding the jury direction was inadequate and that, on the evidence, the verdict for the plaintiff could not be sustained without a clearer finding of negligence. Evatt and McTiernan JJ. would have allowed the appeal, restored the verdict for the plaintiff, and held that there was evidence supporting negligence and the res ipsa loquitur doctrine could apply. With the court equally divided, the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria for a new trial was affirmed.

Parties
Plaintiff, Appellant: Edward Montgomery Davis; Defendant, Respondent: Ernest Walter Bunn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
On equal division of the High Court, the decision appealed from (ordering a new trial) is affirmed.
Legal Topics
Res Ipsa Loquitur, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Burden of Proof
Torts Negligence Res Ipsa Loquitur Motor Vehicle Accidents Burden 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Montgomery Davis

Plaintiff, Appellant

Ernest Walter Bunn

Defendant, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in the maintenance or control of his vehicle resulting in injury to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the accident circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the jury's verdict for the plaintiff could be supported on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court was equally divided. Starke and Dixon JJ. would have dismissed the appeal and let the new trial order stand, holding the jury direction was inadequate and that, on the evidence, the verdict for the plaintiff could not be sustained without a clearer finding of negligence. Evatt and McTiernan JJ. would have allowed the appeal, restored the verdict for the plaintiff, and held that there was evidence supporting negligence and the res ipsa loquitur doctrine could apply. With the court equally divided, the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria for a new trial was affirmed.

Court Disposition

On equal division of the High Court, the decision appealed from (ordering a new trial) is affirmed.

Orders

  • Order that the costs of the former trial, new trial application, appeal to the Supreme Court and appeal to the High Court abide the event of the new trial. Otherwise, appeal dismissed.