HUGHES V. DEEGAN 27/1952
The defendant's employee Nunn was negligent in failing to take proper care in passing the stationary lorry, leading to injury of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was found not to have been contributorily negligent to a degree precluding recovery, and in any event, Nunn had the opportunity to avoid the accident by exercising due care.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hughes; Defendant: Deegan; Other (employee of Deegan): Nunn
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 November 1952
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Personal Injury, Contributory Negligence, Common Employment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hughes
Plaintiff
Deegan
Defendant
Nunn
Other (employee of Deegan)
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Nunn, as driver employed by Deegan, was negligent and caused injury to Hughes
- 2 Whether Hughes was guilty of contributory negligence
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant's employee Nunn was negligent in failing to take proper care in passing the stationary lorry, leading to injury of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was found not to have been contributorily negligent to a degree precluding recovery, and in any event, Nunn had the opportunity to avoid the accident by exercising due care.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment