Davis v Bunn

Edward Montgomery Davis (the plaintiff) brought an action against Ernest Walter Bunn (the defendant) in the County Court at Melbourne, claiming damages for injuries sustained when the defendant's motor van struck the plaintiff and his stationary motor car. The plaintiff was standing beside his car on the side of the road when the defendant's van, approaching from the opposite direction, veered across the road. Evidence indicated that the front off-side tyre and rim of the van came off shortly before the collision, and there were marks on the road consistent with the van losing control. The defendant testified that the steering arm of the van broke suddenly, causing him to lose control.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the jury's verdict for the plaintiff was reasonably open on the evidence, and whether the Supreme Court of Victoria was correct in ordering a new trial. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur* in circumstances where the defendant provided an explanation for the accident, and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury adequately addressed the burden of proof and the various potential causes of the accident. The court also considered whether the defendant was negligent in the driving and management of the van, particularly in the moments leading up to and during the loss of control.

The High Court was divided. Starke J. was of the opinion that the mere occurrence of an accident on a highway does not raise a presumption of negligence and that the plaintiff must establish by evidence circumstances from which it can be inferred that the accident resulted from the defendant's want of care. He found the trial judge's directions to the jury to be inadequate and that the Supreme Court's order for a new trial should be upheld. Dixon and McTiernan JJ. were of the opinion that the verdict of the jury should stand, with Dixon J. noting that while the defendant's explanation of a broken steering arm was plausible, the facts were also open to an interpretation where the tyre and rim came off first due to looseness, which could indicate negligence. Evatt J. also believed the jury's verdict should stand, arguing that the jury was entitled to reject the defendant's explanation and infer negligence from the circumstances, particularly regarding the condition of the wheel, and that the jury system should not be unduly interfered with by appellate courts.

As the High Court was equally divided, the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria was affirmed. This meant that a new trial was to be had between the parties.