KRASTINS V. O'HANLON 25/1960

KRASTINS V. O'HANLON 25/1960

The court concluded that the plaintiff walked into the side of the defendant's car and not the front; thus, the case depended on whether the defendant's failure to see the plaintiff amounted to negligence. The court found that, since the defendant was driving as part of a group of cars, it was possible the view was obscured, and the defendant might not reasonably have seen the plaintiff crossing. The court found no negligence by the defendant and concluded the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence.

Parties
Plaintiff: Krastins; Defendant: O'Hanlon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Personal Injury, Road Accidents
Tort Negligence Personal Injury Road Accidents

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krastins

Plaintiff

O'Hanlon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in causing the collision with the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff contributed to the accident through his own negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that the plaintiff walked into the side of the defendant's car and not the front; thus, the case depended on whether the defendant's failure to see the plaintiff amounted to negligence. The court found that, since the defendant was driving as part of a group of cars, it was possible the view was obscured, and the defendant might not reasonably have seen the plaintiff crossing. The court found no negligence by the defendant and concluded the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed with costs.