March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning a claim for damages for personal injury. The appellant, Mr. March, had suffered severe injuries when he was struck by a reversing prime mover owned by the respondent, E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd, and driven by one of its employees. Mr. March had been walking on the wrong side of the road, facing oncoming traffic, when the incident occurred. The primary judge found the respondent liable in negligence but reduced the damages awarded to Mr. March by 70% on account of his contributory negligence. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia upheld this finding of liability and the apportionment of damages.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court of South Australia had erred in its assessment of the contributory negligence of Mr. March. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the degree of fault attributed to Mr. March was excessive, given the circumstances of the accident and the respective responsibilities of the parties. This involved a re-examination of the principles governing the apportionment of blame in negligence cases, particularly where the plaintiff's conduct contributed to their own injuries.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the Supreme Court had made an error in its apportionment of contributory negligence. While acknowledging that Mr. March's decision to walk on the wrong side of the road was a contributing factor to the accident, the court found that the primary judge had placed too much weight on this conduct when compared to the negligence of the driver. The court emphasised that the driver's failure to keep a proper lookout while reversing a large vehicle, particularly in circumstances where pedestrians might be present, constituted a significant breach of duty. The High Court concluded that the apportionment of 70% contributory negligence was too high and reduced it to 30%.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal in part, varying the order of the Supreme Court of South Australia by reducing the appellant's contributory negligence to 30% and increasing the damages recoverable accordingly.