Bolton, K. v. Pangallo, M. [1987] FCA 199

Bolton, K. v. Pangallo, M. [1987] FCA 199

The trial judge applied correct legal principles and was entitled to reject the defence of volenti non fit injuria on the evidence. The allocation of 30% contributory negligence was not shown to be manifestly erroneous or outside the range of the trial judge's discretion. The assessment of damages for past economic loss, interest, and care was supported by evidence and appropriate. No grounds were shown for appellate interference.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Kevin Bolton; Respondent/appellant: Mario Pangallo
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; Judgment Delivered by Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Assessment of Damages, Motor Vehicle Accident
Torts Appeals Damages Volenti Non Fit Injuria Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Assessment of Damages Motor Vehicle Accident

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Bolton

Appellant/respondent

Mario Pangallo

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; Judgment Delivered by Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of volenti non fit injuria was made out and should defeat the plaintiff's claim
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment for contributory negligence (30%) was manifestly erroneous
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of damages for past economic loss, interest, and care was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge applied correct legal principles and was entitled to reject the defence of volenti non fit injuria on the evidence. The allocation of 30% contributory negligence was not shown to be manifestly erroneous or outside the range of the trial judge's discretion. The assessment of damages for past economic loss, interest, and care was supported by evidence and appropriate. No grounds were shown for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs.
  • The cross-appeal be dismissed with no order as to costs.