Eccleston v Smith

The case of *Eccleston v Smith* involved an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal concerning a motor vehicle accident that resulted in personal injury to the appellant. The respondent was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The appeal challenged findings of fact made by the trial judge regarding the circumstances of the collision.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent driver was not negligent, and whether the evidence, when considered on the balance of probabilities, supported the trial judge's conclusions. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent breached her duty of care to the appellant by failing to stop, swerve, or keep a proper lookout, and whether such a breach caused the appellant's injuries. The appeal also raised questions about the trial judge's findings concerning the respondent's speed, line of sight, and the inevitability of the accident.

The Court of Appeal found that there was tension and ambiguity in the trial judge's reasons. While the trial judge appeared to conclude that the accident was inevitable and acquitted the respondent of negligence, there were also statements suggesting the respondent should have seen the appellant earlier, but that stopping would still have been impossible. The court noted that these findings were based on four primary contested findings: the respondent's speed (25-30 kph), the point of impact, the appellant's obscured position, and the respondent's limited line of sight (18 metres). The appellate court considered that the evidence, on the balance of probabilities, did not adequately support the findings made at first instance.

The appeal was allowed.