Alldridge v Mulcahey

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.