Allen v Redding

The appellant, Allen, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had reversed a judgment in his favour. Allen had sued the respondent, Redding, in the County Court for damages sustained when Redding's motor car collided with him while he was crossing a road at night. The County Court Judge found Redding negligent and Allen not contributorily negligent, but the Supreme Court held Allen to be contributorily negligent and thus barred from recovery.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court erred in finding the appellant contributorily negligent, and if so, whether the respondent had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. The appellant had crossed a 42-foot wide road, having seen the respondent's car approximately 100 yards away and judging he had sufficient time to cross. He continued crossing after reaching the middle of the road without further observation of the approaching vehicle, and was struck near the far kerb. The respondent, who did not see the appellant until after impact, was found by the trial judge to have been negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the appellant's actions did not constitute contributory negligence. The judges considered that a reasonable person in the appellant's position would be entitled to assume that a motorist, particularly in a well-lit street, would maintain a proper lookout and be able to avoid a pedestrian. The appellant's judgment that he had time to cross was not considered an unreasonable risk, especially as stopping in the middle of the road might have presented its own dangers. Furthermore, even if the appellant's conduct was considered negligent, the respondent's failure to see the appellant and his speed contributed to the accident occurring at a point where the appellant could no longer avoid it, thus indicating the respondent had the last opportunity to avert the collision.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the County Court Judge be restored, reinstating the original finding in favour of the appellant.