Jones v Bradley

Jones (Plaintiff) and Bradley (Defendant) were parties to litigation concerning an assessment of contributory negligence and damages. The dispute proceeded to an appellate court, comprising Meagher, Beazley, and Santow JJA.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's discretionary assessment of contributory negligence had miscarried, and whether the trial judge's discretion in assessing damages had also miscarried. Relatedly, the court considered the scope of an appellate court's obligation to give reasons and whether it was appropriate for the appellate court to reassess damages itself. Specific allowances for damages, including the Griffiths v Kerkemeyer allowance, lost earning capacity, home modifications, taxi transport, handyman assistance, future medical care, and a case manager, were also in contention.

The appellate court found that the actions of both the plaintiff and the defendant involved serious and substantial departures from the standard of care, and that both parties' actions possessed a significant degree of causal potency. The court determined that the trial judge's discretionary assessments regarding both contributory negligence and damages had miscarried. Consequently, the appellate court reassessed the damages.

The appeal was allowed.