Legal Research
Cases
McLellan v Bowyer

McLellan v Bowyer

Case [1961] HCA 49 11 August 1961

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., Fullagar, Kitto, Taylor and Menzies JJ. (THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE FULLAGAR died at Melbourne before judgment in this appeal was delivered. THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MENZIES did not deliver a judgment in this appeal.)

McLELLAN v. BOWYER

(1961) 106 CLR 95

11 August 1961

Evidence—New Trial—Negligence

Evidence—Witness—Leave to treat as hostile—Hostility not determinable only on demeanour—Prior inconsistent statement—Not essential to have been made to party or attorney—Interest—Sympathy—Discretion of trial judge—Grounds upon &hich appellate court will interfere. New trial—Evidence—Wrongful admission—Not such as to influence jury—New trial refused. Negligence—Contributory negligence—"Last opportunity"—Running-down case—Direction to jury.

Decision

August 11.
The following written judgment was delivered:-
DIXON C.J., KITTO AND TAYLOR JJ. This is an appeal from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales by which, on the motion of the present respondent, an order was made for the new trial of an action in which he was the plaintiff and the appellant was the defendant. The claim made in the action was for damages for personal injury sustained by the respondent when he was run down by a vehicle which the appellant was driving at night-time near the junction of Warringah Road and Cornish Avenue in French's Forest and upon the trial the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. (at p99)

2. So far as they are now material the grounds upon which an order for a new trial was sought in the Supreme Court were, in effect, that: (1952) 85 CLR 437 the trial judge had wrongly permitted cross-examination of the respondent's son as a hostile, or adverse, witness; (2) the trial judge had erroneously admitted in evidence - (a) a written statement made by the appellant at the time of the accident; and (b) a small sketch plan of the immediate locality purporting to show the position where the respondent had left his van before proceeding across the road, and, also the path which he took when he proceeded to cross the road; and (3) his Honour should have instructed the jury that this was a case where the so-called last opportunity rule should be applied. All of the learned members of the Full Court were of the opinion that grounds (1) and (3) could not be sustained and they were also unanimous that the documents referred to in (2) were wrongly admitted. But they disagreed upon the question whether, in the circumstances, there should be a new trial. However, by a majority an order for a new trial was made. (at p99)

3. Before us it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the admission of the evidence referred to in (2) above could not in any way have influenced the result of the trial and it is conceded that the admission of the appellant's statement was erroneous. No such concession is, however, made with respect to the sketch plan. These contentions are disputed by the respondent who seeks to uphold his order for a new…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading McLellan v Bowyer

Details

AGLC: McLellan v Bowyer [1961] HCA 49
Case: [1961] HCA 49
Decision Date: 11 August 1961

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *McLellan v Bowyer*. The dispute concerned the appellant's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The respondent was the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant had established a breach of duty of care on the part of the respondent. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the respondent's driving conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver in the circumstances, thereby causing the appellant's injuries.

The Court considered the evidence presented regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. It applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the elements of duty, breach, and causation. The Court analysed the respondent's actions in the context of traffic conditions and the foreseeability of harm. The judgments of Dixon C.J., Kitto and Taylor JJ. were delivered, with Fullagar J. having passed away before judgment and Menzies J. not delivering a judgment.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent had breached his duty of care to the appellant. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the court below be set aside, with judgment entered for the appellant.

Orders