Boateng v Dharamdas

The appeal in *Boateng v Dharamdas* concerned a motor vehicle accident involving the appellant driver and the respondent pedestrian. The primary judge had made findings regarding the point of impact and the appellant's failure to keep a proper lookout, finding the appellant negligent. The pedestrian's duty of care to other road users, including pedestrians, and the requirement for drivers to exercise a high degree of vigilance, particularly near intersections and other traffic, were central to the dispute.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the primary judge erred in their findings concerning the point of impact and the appellant's negligence. The court also considered whether the primary judge correctly applied the principles of causation, particularly in light of expert evidence regarding the driver's response time. Furthermore, the appeal addressed the primary judge's findings on contributory negligence, the apportionment of liability, and whether an error was demonstrated in these findings. Finally, the court examined whether the primary judge erred in accepting medical evidence for the assessment of damages, given that the respondent had provided inaccurate and incomplete histories of pre-accident symptoms and conditions to the medical experts, and whether this warranted a new trial for the re-assessment of damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the primary judge had erred in accepting medical evidence for the assessment of damages due to the inaccurate and incomplete histories provided by the respondent. The court reasoned that this error was significant enough to warrant a new trial on the issue of damages. The notice of cross-appeal was dismissed. The order setting aside the primary judge's order and remitting the matter for a new trial on damages was made. The respondent was ordered to pay 40 per cent of the appellant's costs in the Court of Appeal and was granted a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) if otherwise entitled.