BOYD v ELLIOTT [1992] NSWCA 26

BOYD v ELLIOTT [1992] NSWCA 26

On the trial judge’s factual findings—accepted as not shown to be erroneous—the appellant moved suddenly and unpredictably into the path of the respondent’s vehicle, and the respondent did not breach her duty of care in failing to anticipate or avoid this; as a result, negligence was not established and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Boyd; Respondent: Olga Elliott
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Contributory Negligence, Pedestrian Accidents
Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Duty of Care Standard of Care Contributory Negligence Pedestrian 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 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Boyd

Appellant

Olga Elliott

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was negligent in the operation of her motor vehicle leading to the injury of the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the standard of care owed by a motorist to a pedestrian was breached in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in accepting the respondent’s version of events over the appellant’s and his witnesses’

Ratio Decidendi

On the trial judge’s factual findings—accepted as not shown to be erroneous—the appellant moved suddenly and unpredictably into the path of the respondent’s vehicle, and the respondent did not breach her duty of care in failing to anticipate or avoid this; as a result, negligence was not established and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.