Flounders v Millar

The appeal concerned a motor vehicle accident where the respondent, a pedestrian, was struck by the appellant's vehicle on a road at night in an isolated industrial area. The primary dispute revolved around the findings of the trial judge regarding the appellant's negligence and its causal connection to the respondent's injuries. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge's factual findings were demonstrably "glaringly improbable," particularly in light of alleged inconsistencies between statements the appellant made to the police and his evidence at trial. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the evidentiary onus on causation shifted to the defendant once a breach of duty was established, and whether the accident could have been avoided by the appellant exercising reasonable care. The court also considered whether there was a rational explanation for the accident that was inconsistent with the appellant's negligence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings of fact, concluding that they were not "glaringly improbable." The court reasoned that the trial judge was entitled to weigh the evidence presented, including the appellant's statements and trial testimony, and to make findings based on that assessment. The court affirmed that the onus of proving causation generally rests with the plaintiff, and while a breach of duty may create a strong inference of causation, it does not automatically shift the evidentiary burden to the defendant to disprove it. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied these principles and that there was a rational explanation for the accident consistent with the appellant's negligence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was also dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.