WENDY JUNE SPENCER v ROBERT JAMES HUME [1991] NSWCA 255

WENDY JUNE SPENCER v ROBERT JAMES HUME [1991] NSWCA 255

The trial judge's apportionment of 25% contributory negligence to the respondent was upheld as within the range reasonably open on the evidence. Interest on the Griffiths v Kerkemeyer component should not have been awarded, and the damages were recalculated accordingly. The award of general damages was held to not be excessive given the impact of the accident on the respondent's already disabled condition.

Parties
Appellant: Wendy June Spencer; Respondent: Robert James Hume
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal With Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal dismissed. Judgment set aside and substituted with reduced damages; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Responsibility, Damages, Interest on Damages, Motor Vehicle Accidents
Tort Law Negligence Apportionment of Responsibility Damages Interest on Damages Motor Vehicle 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy June Spencer

Appellant

Robert James Hume

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal With Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in apportioning contributory negligence at 25% to the respondent
  2. 2 Whether interest should be awarded on the Griffiths v Kerkemeyer component of damages
  3. 3 Whether the award for general damages was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's apportionment of 25% contributory negligence to the respondent was upheld as within the range reasonably open on the evidence. Interest on the Griffiths v Kerkemeyer component should not have been awarded, and the damages were recalculated accordingly. The award of general damages was held to not be excessive given the impact of the accident on the respondent's already disabled condition.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal dismissed. Judgment set aside and substituted with reduced damages; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed