15 Nov 2024
The conviction was upheld because objective dash‑cam evidence showed no deceleration before collision, the appellant's testimony was rejected as not credible, and on a rehearing the court concluded the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant failed to exercise the requisite care, causing the collision.
26 Jan 2023
The judge was entitled to find on the evidence, including analysis of the dashcam footage and scene conditions, that a reasonable and attentive driver sitting at the wheel would have seen the pedestrian earlier by observing to the right and therefore failed to exercise the requisite care; the conviction was safe and is upheld.
21 Apr 2010
The Magistrate made a permissible evaluation of credibility and evidential inconsistencies, correctly concluding the collision and Appellant's failure to pay attention satisfied careless driving; the physical-impossibility and medical chit arguments did not show material error in the Magistrate's reasoning, so the conviction must stand.
12 Jul 2007
The 1st defendant breached the standard of care by swerving into the railings instead of braking and holding line when the PLB allegedly cut in; his reaction was the sole or primary cause of the accident and he is liable for the plaintiff's injuries and consequential losses, which are quantified in the judgment.
21 Nov 2006
Plaintiff fell and was injured but failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant or its motorman caused the fall by negligent driving or that the tram lacked adequate safety rails; the tram's acceleration characteristics and lack of corroborating evidence defeated causation and liability, therefore claim dismissed.
11 Jul 1979
A reasonable driver is not required, on these facts, to anticipate that an adult pedestrian confronted by a pavement obstruction will step into the road in front of oncoming traffic; the driver here was driving slowly, saw the deceased and events occurred too quickly for further avoiding action, therefore there was no breach of duty and no negligence by the second defendant.