TROMPP V. LIDDLE 19/1941

TROMPP V. LIDDLE 19/1941

There was no inference or direct evidence that the defendant was travelling at excessive speed or that excessive speed caused or contributed to the accident; thus, there was no evidence fit for the jury and the appeal should be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Eleanor Susanah Trompp; Respondent: Thomas Liddle
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 1941
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Compensation to Relatives Act, Negligence, Excessive Speed, Evidence Fit for Jury
Tort Law Compensation to Relatives Act Negligence Excessive Speed Evidence Fit for Jury

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eleanor Susanah Trompp

Appellant

Thomas Liddle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence fit to be left to the jury that the defendant was driving at an excessive or unreasonable speed
  2. 2 Whether judgment should have been entered for the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was no inference or direct evidence that the defendant was travelling at excessive speed or that excessive speed caused or contributed to the accident; thus, there was no evidence fit for the jury and the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the appeal to be taxed and paid to the respondent