KERWICK V. BRIGHT 46/1941

There was no sufficient evidence of contributory negligence for the jury; the verdict could not be sustained, and the appeal should be allowed with a new trial ordered.

Parties: Appellant: Patrick Ernest Kerwick; Respondent: William Bright
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 12 December 1941
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Negligence, Contributory Negligence, New Trial

Torts Negligence Contributory Negligence New Trial

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Patrick Ernest Kerwick

Appellant

William Bright

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

1 Whether there was sufficient evidence of contributory negligence to be left to the jury
2 Whether the general verdict for the defendant could stand given the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficient evidence of contributory negligence for the jury; the verdict could not be sustained, and the appeal should be allowed with a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Order of the Supreme Court set aside
New trial to be had