Unwin, Leslie James & Anor v Clarke, Neville Bruce [1984] FCA 215

Unwin, Leslie James & Anor v Clarke, Neville Bruce [1984] FCA 215

The collision was caused principally by the appellants' negligence in leaving a large unlit vehicle on the roadway in darkness, which was a substantial cause of the accident; the respondent's negligence was minor by comparison. The trial judge's apportionment of responsibility (75% appellants, 25% respondent) was just and equitable and no error was shown warranting appellate interference.

Parties
First Appellant: Leslie James Unwin; Second Appellant: Paul Unwin; Respondent: Neville Bruce Clarke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 1984
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages, Motor Vehicle Accident, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Responsibility
Torts Damages Motor Vehicle Accident Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Responsibility

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie James Unwin

First Appellant

Paul Unwin

Second Appellant

Neville Bruce Clarke

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in apportioning responsibility for a motor vehicle accident 75% to the appellants and 25% to the respondent under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act

Ratio Decidendi

The collision was caused principally by the appellants' negligence in leaving a large unlit vehicle on the roadway in darkness, which was a substantial cause of the accident; the respondent's negligence was minor by comparison. The trial judge's apportionment of responsibility (75% appellants, 25% respondent) was just and equitable and no error was shown warranting appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellants shall pay the respondent's costs.