23 Jul 2008
The 1st Defendant was negligent because he failed to observe and take reasonable precautions against traffic in the fast lane before the junction, and his sudden braking/steering while travelling at speed caused the motorcycle to lose balance and topple; therefore he is liable for the Plaintiff's injuries and costs follow the event.
2 Feb 2001
The Defendant was not negligent because she was driving at a reasonable speed within the limit, had no realistic opportunity to avoid the suddenly emerging child who ran into the road a few metres away, and therefore the child's sudden crossing was the sole cause of the accident; consequently the Plaintiff's claim fails and the Defendant's third party claim for contribution/indemnity also fails.
31 Jan 1975
The court held the trial judge’s primary factual finding that the child suddenly pursued a bouncing ball and thereby created an unexpected emergency was supported by the evidence, but the driver breached his duty by failing to slow when he saw children with a ball; liability is apportioned two-thirds to the child and one-third to the driver, reducing damages accordingly.