CLOWRY V. RALSTON

CLOWRY V. RALSTON

There was insufficient evidence to establish any breach of duty or negligence by the defendant that caused the plaintiff's injury. The accident did not result from any act or omission of the defendant and cannot be attributed to a failure to exercise due care.

Parties
Defendant: CLOWRY; Plaintiff: RALSTON
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 1957
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Personal Injury, Duty of Care
Tort Negligence Personal Injury Duty of Care

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CLOWRY

Defendant

RALSTON

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff in connection with the condition and operation of the taxi door
  2. 2 Whether the accident and injury were caused by any negligence of the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient evidence to establish any breach of duty or negligence by the defendant that caused the plaintiff's injury. The accident did not result from any act or omission of the defendant and cannot be attributed to a failure to exercise due care.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Capital Territory discharged
  • Judgment for the defendant with costs