King v Sexton & Green & Anor [2000] NSWCA 340

King v Sexton & Green & Anor [2000] NSWCA 340

The expert yaw theory accepted at trial was not supported by the physical and lay evidence, including the sharp angle and consistent track-width tyre marks, and the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the steering linkage failed before impact and caused the accident. Because the vehicle's steering linkage broke within 10 months of purchase and no alternative explanation was established, the vehicle was not of merchantable quality under s 19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), making the first respondent liable; the substantive claim against the second respondent failed because the Sale of Goods Act did not apply between it and the appellant, the Trade Practices Act claim was out of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff's Appeal in a Damages Claim Arising From a Single Vehicle Road Accident, With the Trial Limited to Liability / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From the Supreme Court, Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for damages to be assessed; claim against the second respondent failed substantively but costs were ordered against both respondents; proceedings remitted.
Legal Topics
['single Vehicle Motor Accident' 'steering Linkage Failure' 'merchantable Quality' 'expert Evidence' 'weight of Evidence' 'cross Claims' 'costs']

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

Plaintiff's Appeal in a Damages Claim Arising From a Single Vehicle Road Accident, With the Trial Limited to Liability / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From the Supreme Court, Common Law Division

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in accepting expert evidence that the vehicle crossed the road in a yaw condition and that the steering linkage broke on impact with the embankment' 'Whether the steering linkage broke before the impact and caused the accident' 'Whether the first respondent was liable for breach of the implied condition of merchantable quality under s 19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)' 'Whether the appellant could succeed against the second respondent' 'Whether the cross-claims between the respondents should be determined by the Court of Appeal or remitted']

Ratio Decidendi

The expert yaw theory accepted at trial was not supported by the physical and lay evidence, including the sharp angle and consistent track-width tyre marks, and the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the steering linkage failed before impact and caused the accident. Because the vehicle's steering linkage broke within 10 months of purchase and no alternative explanation was established, the vehicle was not of merchantable quality under s 19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), making the first respondent liable; the substantive claim against the second respondent failed because the Sale of Goods Act did not apply between it and the appellant, the Trade Practices Act claim was out of...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for damages to be assessed; claim against the second respondent failed substantively but costs were ordered against both respondents; proceedings remitted.

Orders

  • ["Appeal allowed. First and second respondents to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal." 'Judgment for the first defendant and the order for costs in favour of the second defendant in the Common Law Division set aside.' "In lieu thereof enter judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for damages to...