CONNELL V. RAKOS AND BOWIE

Defendant Rakos was negligent in failing to stop at the intersection, causing the accident and the plaintiff's injuries. Bowie was not negligent, as it was reasonable for him to assume vehicles would obey the 'Stop' sign and buildings prevented observation of Rakos' approach. The plaintiff's injuries and subsequent deterioration are causally connected to the accident, entitling him to damages from Rakos.

Parties: Plaintiff: Connell; Defendant: Rakos; Defendant: Bowie
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 11 May 1962
Procedural Posture: Personal Injury / Final Judgment
Outcome: Judgment for plaintiff against Rakos; judgment for Bowie; costs orders as specified.
Legal Topics: Negligence, Damages, Personal Injury

Tort Law Negligence Damages Personal Injury

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Connell

Plaintiff

Rakos

Defendant

Bowie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether defendant Rakos was negligent in causing the accident.
2 Whether defendant Bowie was negligent.
3 Assessment of damages for personal injury.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against Rakos; judgment for Bowie; costs orders as specified.

Orders

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for £11,848 against Rakos.
Rakos to pay plaintiff's costs, including reserved interlocutory costs.