Howell v Nominal Defendant [1962] HCA 4

Howell v Nominal Defendant [1962] HCA 4

By majority, s. 30 (2) (a) is concerned with giving an injured plaintiff a right of action against the nominal defendant as a substitute for a claim against an unidentifiable owner or driver of an offending motor vehicle. It does not permit recovery against the nominal defendant merely because the plaintiff cannot prove whether an identified vehicle or another vehicle caused the injury. The trial judge correctly directed the jury that, if Burns' identified car caused the collision, the appellant could not obtain a verdict against the nominal defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal From an Order Dismissing a Motion for a New Trial in a Personal Injury Action Against the Nominal Defendant / High Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['nominal Defendant' 'unidentified Motor Vehicle' 'personal Injury Damages' 'due Inquiry and Search' 'jury Directions' 'new Trial']
['motor Vehicle Insurance' 'torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['nominal Defendant' 'unidentified Motor Vehicle' 'personal Injury Damages' 'due Inquiry and Search' 'jury Directions' 'new Trial']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal From an Order Dismissing a Motion for a New Trial in a Personal Injury Action Against the Nominal Defendant / High Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s. 30 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1942-1951 N.S.W. allowed recovery against the nominal defendant where the appellant could not establish whether his injuries were caused by Burns' identified car or an unidentified grey car." "Whether the trial judge was correct to direct the jury that they could not find against the nominal defendant if the collision was caused by the negligent driving of Burns' identified car."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, s. 30 (2) (a) is concerned with giving an injured plaintiff a right of action against the nominal defendant as a substitute for a claim against an unidentifiable owner or driver of an offending motor vehicle. It does not permit recovery against the nominal defendant merely because the plaintiff cannot prove whether an identified vehicle or another vehicle caused the injury. The trial judge correctly directed the jury that, if Burns' identified car caused the collision, the appellant could not obtain a verdict against the nominal defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']