MORRIS V. WHITE

MORRIS V. WHITE

The defendant was negligent due to not keeping a proper lookout and breaching sec. 124 of the Road Traffic Act. This negligence was the direct cause of the plaintiff's accident. The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, as his actions in response to the emergency were reasonable and his prior omissions did not contribute in a legally relevant way to the accident.

Parties
Plaintiff: Morris; Defendant: White
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 1944
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accidents, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care
Torts Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Contributory Negligence Duty of Care

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

Parties

Morris

Plaintiff

White

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in causing the accident
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was negligent due to not keeping a proper lookout and breaching sec. 124 of the Road Traffic Act. This negligence was the direct cause of the plaintiff's accident. The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, as his actions in response to the emergency were reasonable and his prior omissions did not contribute in a legally relevant way to the accident.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff affirmed
  • Appeal dismissed