HEADLAW V. HOWELL

HEADLAW V. HOWELL

The plaintiff's failure to see the defendant's car may not have amounted to contributory negligence; the defendant's conduct and speed caused the collision, and damages should not be reduced by half or equal apportionment. The appeal is allowed as the plaintiff should recover the full amount of damages as assessed by the trial judge.

Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (appellant); Defendant: Defendant (respondent)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Motor Vehicle Collision
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Motor Vehicle Collision

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant (respondent)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the collision
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment of damages on the basis of equal negligence was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's failure to see the defendant's car may not have amounted to contributory negligence; the defendant's conduct and speed caused the collision, and damages should not be reduced by half or equal apportionment. The appeal is allowed as the plaintiff should recover the full amount of damages as assessed by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Order of the Supreme Court of Tasmania to be varied by ordering that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of £8,829.0.4 in lieu of £4,414.10.2.
  • Respondent to pay appellant's costs of this appeal.