19 Sept 2024
On re‑examination of the evidence, including vehicle dashcam footage and road markings, the appellant failed to demonstrate he had ensured the target lane was safe before changing lanes; his conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver and constituted careless driving, so the conviction is upheld.
3 Jul 2024
The magistrate correctly proceeded because the witness ultimately gave evidence; on viewing the dashcam footage the appellant cut lanes at relatively high speed and failed to pay proper attention, and that conduct met the statutory/common‑law standard for careless driving, so the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
3 Nov 2020
Conviction was upheld because the dashcam evidence showed the appellant failed to observe the rear/middle mirror and did not take reasonable care to detect an overtaking vehicle; the trial judge's credibility findings were rational and the conviction was not unsafe.
23 Jan 2020
The conviction was upheld because the trial judge reasonably found on the video, photographs and admissions that the appellant approached a marked 'SLOW' pedestrian crossing with visible pedestrians and nonetheless maintained about 40 km/h instead of slowing to a speed that would permit immediate braking; that failure constituted lack of the requisite care and attention and supported a finding of careless driving beyond reasonable doubt.
5 Mar 2012
Defendant was negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and not taking appropriate precautions (sounding horn/decelerating) and thus liable for the collision; the infant plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 25% for quickening his pace and not waiting on the safety island, leading to interlocutory judgment for plaintiff for 75% of damages.
7 Apr 2009
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the driver was driving within the speed limit, it was not reasonable to expect the driver to anticipate a pedestrian emerging from behind a stationary bus and reduce speed to an impracticably low level, and the accident was caused entirely by the plaintiff's negligence, so the appeal had no realistic prospect of success.
2 Sept 2008
The driver was not negligent because he drove slowly, was alert, took reasonable evasive action, and had no obligation to sound the horn in the circumstances; the accident resulted from the plaintiff stepping into the road without looking, so negligence against the defendant was not made out and the appeal must be allowed.
4 Apr 2006
The defendant was not negligent; the parked van obscured the plaintiff until a second before impact and the collision was caused by the plaintiff's sudden emergence and forward momentum rather than driver fault; the plaintiff failed to prove causal links for claimed psychiatric and hearing injuries; claim dismissed.
18 Feb 2005
On the facts found, the 2nd defendant did not breach the standard of a reasonable driver: his deceleration was fair/medium and not negligent or emergency braking, and there was no evidence of negligent conduct causing the sudden stop; the plaintiff failed to keep a reasonably safe distance and misjudged the intensity of deceleration, therefore liability was not proven and the claim is dismissed.
25 Aug 2004
The magistrate correctly admitted the deceased's telephone statement as res gestae because the circumstances excluded the possibility of concoction; taken with the appellant's two cautioned statements and scene evidence, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for careless driving, and the magistrate did not impermissibly rely on res ipsa loquitur.