Negligence—Motor vehicle collision—Vehicles travelling in opposite directions on straight road—Evidence by each driver that he was on correct side of road—No evidence of swerve by either vehicle—How collision occured not established—Burden of proof—Sufficiency of evidence—Wrongs Act, 1936-1951 (S.A.), s. 27a (3).
Decisions
November 19. The following written judgments were delivered:- McTIERNAN A.C.J. This appeal relates to an action of negligence which arose out of a collision on a road in South Australia - the Cavan Road. The vehicles which collided were a motor cycle (with a side-car attached) and a motor car. The plaintiff was the driver of the former and the defendant was the driver of the latter. There was no passenger in either vehicle. The vehicles were proceeding in opposite directions. The road was straight and level. The sealed surface of the road on which the vehicles were travelling was twenty-two feet wide. It was night when the collision occured. No question of faulty lighting or undue speed was raised. The curious feature of the case is that although each party said in evidence that he was travelling on his proper side of the road and observing the other vehicle and the trial judge could not reject the evidence of either, the vehicles did in fact collide. Both parties gave the same explanation, namely that the other vehicle must have swerved, but each party admitted fully that he did not see a swerve or movement by the other's vehicle. Each vehicle was damaged on its right-hand side only. (at p142)
2. The plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of the collision. He claimed damages for the injuries he suffered and the cost of repairing his motor cycle. The defendant counter claimed for the damage done to his motor car. The issues raised by the pleadings were whether the collision was caused by negligence on the part of the defendant or the plaintiff and, if caused by negligence on the part of the defendant, whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence contributing to the damage he suffered. The common law as to contributory negligence was altered by a statute of South Australia (No. 50 of 1951) which enacts s. 27 (a) of the Wrongs Act, 1936- 1951. The section provides that - "(3) Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage". (at p143)
3. The trial judge, Travers J., having summed up the evidence material to the issues of negligence found as follows: "I am…
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 Nesterczuk v Mortimore
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Nesterczuk v Mortimore [1965] HCA 60
Case
[1965] HCA 60
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Nesterczuk v Mortimore* concerned a dispute between the appellant, Nesterczuk, and the respondent, Mortimore, regarding a contract for the sale of land. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the rights and obligations of the parties under this agreement.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had validly terminated the contract for the sale of land due to the appellant's alleged breach. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the appellant's failure to complete the purchase by the stipulated date constituted a repudiation of the contract, thereby entitling the respondent to accept the repudiation and terminate the agreement.
The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the contract's terms and the conduct of the parties. It was held that time was not of the essence in this particular contract, meaning that a failure to complete on the exact date specified did not automatically amount to a repudiation. The Court applied principles of contract law concerning the essentiality of time stipulations and the distinction between a breach of contract and a repudiation that justifies termination. The Court found that the respondent had not established that the appellant's conduct amounted to a repudiation of the contract.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent had wrongfully terminated the contract. The Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the court below be set aside.