DEVINE V. GEEVES

DEVINE V. GEEVES

Both appellant and respondent were equally to blame for the accident due to failure in keeping a proper lookout and exercising reasonable care, warranting an equal apportionment of damages. The assessment of general damages by the trial judge stands, as no ground for appellate interference was demonstrated.

Parties
Appellant: Percy Kenneth Devine; Respondent: Malcolm Drysdale Geeves
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 1958
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Assessment of Damages, Motor Vehicle Accidents
Torts Negligence Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Assessment of Damages Motor Vehicle Accidents

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Percy Kenneth Devine

Appellant

Malcolm Drysdale Geeves

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence
  2. 2 Whether apportionment of damages was correct
  3. 3 Whether the general damages awarded were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

Both appellant and respondent were equally to blame for the accident due to failure in keeping a proper lookout and exercising reasonable care, warranting an equal apportionment of damages. The assessment of general damages by the trial judge stands, as no ground for appellate interference was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.