Alldridge v Mulcahey - [1950] HCA 31

ALLDRIDGE

MULCAHEY AND ANOTHER

RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

QUEENSLAND. Negligence-Contributory megligence-Highway-Accident-Pedestrian walking on

roadway at night-Motor car proceeding in same direction-Wet weather-No windscreen wiper-Driver's vision obscured by raindrops on windscreen magnified by bright headlights of approaching car-Knowledge of driver that roadway used by pedestrians-Duty of driver-Duty of pedestrian walking on roadway at night.

A pedestrian walking along a bitumen roadway, two to three feet from the edge thereof, at night, after it had been raining, was knocked down by a motor car proceeding in the same direction. He was aware of the car's approach and also observed another motor vehicle coming in the opposite direction with bright headlights. The driver of the car changed his course from the centre of the road to his left-hand side, reduced his speed from twelve to ten miles per hour and saw the pedestrian when six feet away, but although he then swerved sharply to his right the car struck the pedestrian. There was no windscreen wiper on the car and the driver's vision was obscured by raindrops on the windscreen magnified by the headlights of the approach- ing vehicle.

In an action against the owner and the driver of the car the trial judge found that the driver drove the car at a time and place when and where he should have known that there was a possibility of pedestrians walking on the roadway. Holding that a pedestrian had a right to walk on the roadway, but was under a duty to take care of his own safety, the trial judge in the result found that the collision was caused by the combined negligence of the pedestrian and the driver and entered judgment for the defendants.

81 CLR 338

Held, by McTiernan and Webb JJ. (Kitto J. dissenting), that the driver was guilty of negligence but that the plaintiff in walking on the roadway was not, in the circumstances, guilty of contributory negligence and judgment should have been given for the plaintiff.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Matthews J.) reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The plaintiff in an action in the Supreme Court of Queensland claimed damages, against both the owner and driver of a motor car, in respect of injuries which he alleged were caused by the negligence of the driver. The defendants by their defence denied negligence and set up that the collision was caused by the plaintiff's own negligence or his contributory negligence.

The accident occurred in Wood Street, Warwick about 7 p.m. on the evening of 9th September 1949. The plaintiff was walking along the bitumen surface of the roadway intending to go to St. Mary's Church. The motor car was proceeding in the same direction, the driver having the same church as his destination. During the day there had been heavy rain, which made the footpath very muddy. The footpaths were gravel. The middle of the road was bitumen and the sides were gravel. On the plaintiff's case the footpath was SO…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alldridge v Mulcahey

Details

AGLC: Alldridge v Mulcahey [1950] HCA 31
Case: [1950] HCA 31
Decision Date: 30 August 1950

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Alldridge v Mulcahey* involved a pedestrian, the plaintiff, who was struck by a motor car driven by the defendant. The accident occurred at night on a wet roadway. The plaintiff was walking on the bitumen surface of the road, a short distance from the edge, when he was hit from behind by the defendant's car. The trial judge in the Supreme Court of Queensland found that the collision was caused by the combined negligence of both the plaintiff and the driver, and accordingly entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the High Court.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the driver of the motor car was negligent, and if so, whether the plaintiff, by walking on the roadway, was guilty of contributory negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine the respective duties of care owed by a driver to a pedestrian on the roadway and by a pedestrian walking on the roadway at night, particularly in wet conditions and with the presence of oncoming traffic. The court also considered whether the driver's impaired vision due to raindrops on the windscreen, magnified by oncoming headlights, and the absence of a windscreen wiper, constituted negligence.

The High Court, by a majority (McTiernan and Webb JJ., with Kitto J. dissenting), held that the driver was negligent. The court reasoned that the driver had a duty to anticipate the presence of pedestrians on the roadway, especially given his knowledge that the road was used by pedestrians and that wet conditions could lead them to use the bitumen. The driver's vision was impaired by raindrops on his windscreen, exacerbated by oncoming headlights, and he lacked a windscreen wiper, which significantly reduced his ability to see. The court found that the driver failed to maintain a proper lookout and drove at a speed that prevented him from stopping or swerving in time to avoid the plaintiff once he was seen. The majority also found that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. They reasoned that while a pedestrian has a duty to take reasonable care for their own safety, the plaintiff was walking on the bitumen in a manner that was not inherently dangerous, given the width of the road and the slow speed of the approaching car. The court considered that the plaintiff was entitled to assume that a driver would exercise reasonable care and that the driver's negligence, particularly the impaired vision, was the substantial cause of the accident.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal was allowed, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The court ordered that the plaintiff should have judgment for damages, with the amount to be determined.

Orders