Sibley v Kais [1967] HCA 43

Sibley v Kais [1967] HCA 43

The paramount duty of care of motorists at intersections is determined by common law as acting reasonably in all the circumstances, and not conclusively by statutory traffic rules; reliance on performance by others of statutory or common law duties is not always reasonable and is a question of fact.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal Refused
Outcome
special leave to appeal refused with costs
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'traffic Accidents' 'duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence']
['tort Law'] ['negligence' 'traffic Accidents' 'duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence']

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Full Court erred in formulating the duty of care of a motorist entering an intersection under common law and relevant traffic regulations' 'Whether reliance on statutory right-hand rule is sufficient to absolve a driver from common law duty of care']

Ratio Decidendi

The paramount duty of care of motorists at intersections is determined by common law as acting reasonably in all the circumstances, and not conclusively by statutory traffic rules; reliance on performance by others of statutory or common law duties is not always reasonable and is a question of fact.

Court Disposition

special leave to appeal refused with costs

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal refused with costs']