ESSELMONT V. OLDHAM AND ANOTHER

ESSELMONT V. OLDHAM AND ANOTHER

An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s finding that the appellant’s sudden stop, made as a natural reaction in response to a pedestrian stepping onto a crossing, was not negligent, absent sufficient grounds to establish unreasonableness.

Parties
Appellant: Esselmont; Respondent: Oldham; Defendant: Bresland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 1963
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accident, Pedestrian Crossing
Tort Negligence Motor Vehicle Accident Pedestrian Crossing

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

Parties

Esselmont

Appellant

Oldham

Respondent

Bresland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant (Esselmont) was negligent in stopping suddenly at a pedestrian crossing, thus contributing to the collision and the respondent’s injuries.

Ratio Decidendi

An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge’s finding that the appellant’s sudden stop, made as a natural reaction in response to a pedestrian stepping onto a crossing, was not negligent, absent sufficient grounds to establish unreasonableness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia discharged
  • Order that the appeal thereto be dismissed with costs