MAKEHAM V. EVANS AND ANOTHER

MAKEHAM V. EVANS AND ANOTHER

It was proper for the appellate court not to interfere with the trial judge's findings as they were based on credibility of witnesses and there was evidence, albeit slender, to support the finding of negligence. The apportionment of responsibility and the quantum of damages should not be disturbed as no clear error was shown.

Parties
Appellant: Makeham; Respondent: Evans; Respondent: Baulk
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 1964
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Damages, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Negligence Contributory Negligence Damages Apportionment of Liability

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makeham

Appellant

Evans

Respondent

Baulk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Makeham was negligent for leaving his parked truck without rear lights burning
  2. 2 Whether Makeham was equally negligent with Baulk
  3. 3 Whether the damages awarded were excessive

Ratio Decidendi

It was proper for the appellate court not to interfere with the trial judge's findings as they were based on credibility of witnesses and there was evidence, albeit slender, to support the finding of negligence. The apportionment of responsibility and the quantum of damages should not be disturbed as no clear error was shown.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.