Harper v Blake [1999] NSWCA 224

Harper v Blake [1999] NSWCA 224

The appellant was not negligent because, after being warned of a possible problem, she slowed down, swerved right and braked heavily when the respondent unexpectedly ran rapidly and diagonally from the roadside towards her car and leapt onto the windscreen. Her conduct was that of a reasonably prudent driver faced...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal in a Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Negligence Claim / Appeal From the District Court Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['pedestrian Collision' 'duty of Care Owed by Motorists' 'contributory Negligence' 'reasonable Driver Standard']
['torts' 'negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accident'] ['pedestrian Collision' 'duty of Care Owed by Motorists' 'contributory Negligence' 'reasonable Driver Standard']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal in a Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Negligence Claim / Appeal From the District Court Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant driver was negligent in failing to avoid collision with the plaintiff pedestrian who ran diagonally towards the car.' 'Whether the plaintiff was solely responsible for the accident.' "Whether the trial judge applied too heavy a test to the defendant driver's conduct."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not negligent because, after being warned of a possible problem, she slowed down, swerved right and braked heavily when the respondent unexpectedly ran rapidly and diagonally from the roadside towards her car and leapt onto the windscreen. Her conduct was that of a reasonably prudent driver faced with a sudden emergency, and the respondent was solely responsible for the accident.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The judgment on liability found in favour of the plaintiff is set aside.' 'Judgment and verdict for the defendant with costs is substituted.']