ALBERT v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT [1999] NSWCA 73

ALBERT v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT [1999] NSWCA 73

The evidence supported inferences that the unidentified driver failed to keep a proper lookout and that the appellant failed to take reasonable care for his own safety by entering the roadway when light traffic conditions meant he should have seen the vehicle. The trial judge's 50 per cent apportionment was within the proper range of evaluative judgment, and no identifiable error or plainly disproportionate result was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Negligence Proceedings for Damages Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Appeal From the District Court Challenging a 50 Per Cent Reduction for Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'motor Vehicle Accident' 'pedestrian Injury' 'appellate Review of Apportionment']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'motor Vehicle Accident' 'pedestrian Injury' 'appellate Review of Apportionment']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Negligence Proceedings for Damages Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Appeal From the District Court Challenging a 50 Per Cent Reduction for Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in reducing the appellant's damages by 50 per cent for contributory negligence." "Whether greater responsibility for the appellant's damage should have been attributed to the unidentified driver represented by the Nominal Defendant." 'Whether the apportionment was outside the proper exercise of evaluative judgment available on the facts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence supported inferences that the unidentified driver failed to keep a proper lookout and that the appellant failed to take reasonable care for his own safety by entering the roadway when light traffic conditions meant he should have seen the vehicle. The trial judge's 50 per cent apportionment was within the proper range of evaluative judgment, and no identifiable error or plainly disproportionate result was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.']