TULLY V. BEACH AND OTHERS

TULLY V. BEACH AND OTHERS

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on the evidence and the application of the relevant traffic regulation and general law of negligence, that negligence should not be attributed to Beach under the circumstances. The inference that Beach was not negligent was open to the trial judge, and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Parties
Defendant: Beach; Plaintiff: Coral; Defendant: Standard Insurance Company; Third Party: Tully
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 1961
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accident, Personal Injuries
Tort Law Negligence Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injuries

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beach

Defendant

Coral

Plaintiff

Standard Insurance Company

Defendant

Tully

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Beach was negligent in causing the accident resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in not finding negligence based on the circumstances of the case

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on the evidence and the application of the relevant traffic regulation and general law of negligence, that negligence should not be attributed to Beach under the circumstances. The inference that Beach was not negligent was open to the trial judge, and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross appeal dismissed with costs against the cross appellant.