Stuart J HOWIE v Mathew RANDALL [1996] NSWCA 258

Stuart J HOWIE v Mathew RANDALL [1996] NSWCA 258

The appeal fails as the finding of 50% contributory negligence was justified on the basis the appellant ought to have been aware of the driver’s intoxication, accompanied the driver to collect his car, and shared responsibility for ensuing events; the trial judge's findings regarding non-economic loss and diminution of earning capacity were not erroneous. Interest was set aside as statutory preconditions were not met.

Parties
Appellant: Stuart J Howie; Respondent: Mathew Randall
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Damages, Interest, Non Economic Loss, Earning Capacity
Torts Motor Vehicle Accidents Contributory Negligence Damages Interest Non Economic Loss Earning Capacity

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart J Howie

Appellant

Mathew Randall

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was contributory negligence by the appellant as a voluntary passenger with a heavily intoxicated driver
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's assessment of 50% contributory negligence was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the finding of 55% non-economic loss was in error

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails as the finding of 50% contributory negligence was justified on the basis the appellant ought to have been aware of the driver’s intoxication, accompanied the driver to collect his car, and shared responsibility for ensuing events; the trial judge's findings regarding non-economic loss and diminution of earning capacity were not erroneous. Interest was set aside as statutory preconditions were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal upheld to the extent of $585.90