HEALEY v GRAHAM [1991] NSWCA 147

HEALEY v GRAHAM [1991] NSWCA 147

The trial judge’s critical factual findings—that the plaintiff was not beside the passenger's window holding onto the van when it moved—were open on the evidence and not shown to be erroneous. Therefore, negligence was not established on the facts as found, and the appeal must fail.

Parties
Appellant: Healey; Respondent: Graham
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Personal Injury, Appellate Review, Evidentiary Rulings
Tort Law Negligence Personal Injury Appellate Review Evidentiary Rulings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Healey

Appellant

Graham

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the defendant was not negligent in the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's fall from the defendant's vehicle
  2. 2 Whether the rejection of a witness statement under s14B of the Evidence Act occasioned a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge’s critical factual findings—that the plaintiff was not beside the passenger's window holding onto the van when it moved—were open on the evidence and not shown to be erroneous. Therefore, negligence was not established on the facts as found, and the appeal must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.