TERRY v BEADON [1996] NSWCA 520

TERRY v BEADON [1996] NSWCA 520

The trial judge properly found that while it was foreseeable the plaintiff might stray near the truck, it was not foreseeable he would fall under the truck in the relevant time and space, and therefore, there was no breach of duty of care by the respondent.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Terry; Respondent: Eric Beadon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accident, Personal Injury, Damages, Foreseeability of Risk of Injury
Tort Law Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Damages Foreseeability of Risk of 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Terry

Appellant

Eric Beadon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a reasonable driver in the respondent's position could have foreseen the risk of injury to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether there was a logical basis for distinguishing foreseeability of straying versus falling under the vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly found that while it was foreseeable the plaintiff might stray near the truck, it was not foreseeable he would fall under the truck in the relevant time and space, and therefore, there was no breach of duty of care by the respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed with costs