Seferovic, Jusuf v King, Rosalind Ann & Anos [1983] FCA 61

Seferovic, Jusuf v King, Rosalind Ann & Anos [1983] FCA 61

There is no reason to differ from the apportionment of liability concluded by the Supreme Court, and the findings of negligence and respective fault were properly determined on the evidence. The appellate court should not interfere without demonstrated error or a clear basis to do so.

Parties
Appellant: Jusuf Seferovic; Respondent: Rosalind Ann King; Respondent: John William Finn; Respondent: Rosalind Ann Finn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 1983
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Motor Vehicle Collision, Right Hand Turn, Negligence of Drivers, Interference by Appellate Court
Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Apportionment of Liability Motor Vehicle Collision Right Hand Turn Negligence of Drivers Interference by Appellate Court

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jusuf Seferovic

Appellant

Rosalind Ann King

Respondent

John William Finn

Respondent

Rosalind Ann Finn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the apportionment of liability between the drivers was correct
  2. 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial judge's apportionment of blame

Ratio Decidendi

There is no reason to differ from the apportionment of liability concluded by the Supreme Court, and the findings of negligence and respective fault were properly determined on the evidence. The appellate court should not interfere without demonstrated error or a clear basis to do so.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal in No. A.C.T. G64 of 1982 is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal.
  • The appeal in No. A.C.T. G65 of 1982 is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.