GRZELAK v. PASSAFARO & ANOR [1999] NSWCA 81

GRZELAK v. PASSAFARO & ANOR [1999] NSWCA 81

Insufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellant failed to take reasonable care for her own safety; Respondents did not discharge the onus to prove contributory negligence. The trial judge's finding of contributory negligence was misdirected and unsupported.

Parties
Appellant: Parthena Grzelak; First Respondent: Gregorio Passafaro; Second Respondent: Joseph Cosentino
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Motor Vehicle Accident, Contributory Negligence, Pedestrian Injury
Negligence Tort Law Duty of Care Motor Vehicle Accident Contributory Negligence Pedestrian Injury

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parthena Grzelak

Appellant

Gregorio Passafaro

First Respondent

Joseph Cosentino

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver breached duty of care by failing to keep proper look-out
  2. 2 Whether the pedestrian was guilty of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Insufficient evidence to conclude that the Appellant failed to take reasonable care for her own safety; Respondents did not discharge the onus to prove contributory negligence. The trial judge's finding of contributory negligence was misdirected and unsupported.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Verdict in favour of the Appellant in the District Court set aside
  • Substitute verdict entered for the Appellant in the sum of $400,000