MURGIDA v HAINES [1998] NSWCA 148

MURGIDA v HAINES [1998] NSWCA 148

No sufficient error was found in the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding foreseeability and the phrasing used; the sum-up was considered adequate and did not warrant appellate interference.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Murgida; Respondent: Haines
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Foreseeability, Misdirection of Jury
Tort Law Employment Law Personal Injury Foreseeability Misdirection of Jury

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murgida

Appellant

Haines

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding foreseeability of risk.
  2. 2 Whether the use of the phrase 'prove' rather than 'satisfy' in summing up constituted a misdirection.

Ratio Decidendi

No sufficient error was found in the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding foreseeability and the phrasing used; the sum-up was considered adequate and did not warrant appellate interference.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs