Kohn v Sallman [1965] HCA 59

Kohn v Sallman [1965] HCA 59

By majority, the trial judge and the Full Court placed the true interpretation on reg. 402 (7): if the respondent had crossed the property line of Alma Road and was already in the intersection before the appellant began to cross the building line of Alexandra Street, the respondent had the right of way; otherwise the appellant had the right of way. The trial judge's charge substantially conveyed that direction, and the remaining objection to the charge failed, so no new trial was ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Arising From Motor Vehicle Negligence Action / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['intersection Collision' 'right of Way' 'give Way Signs' 'jury Direction' 'new Trial' 'construction of Traffic Regulations']
['tort Law' 'road Traffic Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'civil Procedure'] ['intersection Collision' 'right of Way' 'give Way Signs' 'jury Direction' 'new Trial' 'construction of Traffic Regulations']

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

Civil Appeal Arising From Motor Vehicle Negligence Action / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Road Traffic Regulation 402 (7) required a driver faced with a "Give Way" sign to yield only to vehicles entering the intersection by crossing its boundary at the same time, or also to vehicles approaching the intersection from another highway.' 'Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the right of way obligations under the Road Traffic Regulations.' 'Whether any misdirection warranted a new trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the trial judge and the Full Court placed the true interpretation on reg. 402 (7): if the respondent had crossed the property line of Alma Road and was already in the intersection before the appellant began to cross the building line of Alexandra Street, the respondent had the right of way; otherwise the appellant had the right of way. The trial judge's charge substantially conveyed that direction, and the remaining objection to the charge failed, so no new trial was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']