Negligence—Highway—Collision between motor vehicles—Intersection—Duty to give way to vehicle on right—Duty of driver on right to act reasonably—Road Traffic Code, 1965 (W.A.), regs. 601, 602.*
Decision
November 3. THE COURT delivered the following written judgment:- The applicant and the respondent were involved in a collision between their respective cars in an intersection of two streets in a suburb of Perth. The applicant's car was proceeding to enter the intersection when the respondent's car did so at a speed of some thirty to thirty-five miles per hour. The applicant, who was driving at twenty to twenty-five miles per hour as he approached the intersection, found no traffic seeking to enter the intersection from his right-hand side but, as the trial judge found, was rather late in looking to his left. Apparently he was in the intersection before he observed the respondent's car approaching "pretty fast". He then applied his brakes but was unable to bring his car to a standstill before it was two to three feet over the centre line of the street in which the respondent's car was being driven. (at p426)
2. The collision there took place. The trial judge found that the accident was solely due to the respondent's negligence. On appeal, the Full Court in substance held that the trial judge had erred in allowing the traffic rule as to giving way at intersections to determine the question whether the applicant was guilty of negligence in entering the intersection without having sooner looked for traffic approaching on his left-hand side. It held that the applicant's responsibility for the occurrence should be assessed at 25% and reduced the trial judge's assessment of damages from $4074.70 to $3056.00. (at p426)
3. The applicant seeks this Court's special leave to appeal upon the ground that the Full Court's formulation of the duty of a motorist entering an intersection was erroneous and that the proper definition of that duty is a matter of public importance. The last proposition may be granted but the applicant has not raised a sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the Full Court's judgment to warrant the grant of special leave. Indeed, in our opinion, the Full Court was clearly right. (at p426)
4. The traffic rules upon which the applicant relies as absolving him from any want of care in the circumstances are to be found in the Regulations made pursuant to the Traffic Act, 1919-1965, of the State of Western Australia. Regulation 602 provides :
"Subject to sub-regulations 8 and 9 of regulation 402, the driver of a vehicle that is approaching or has arrived at an intersection shall give way to a vehicle on his right hand that is approaching or has arrived at that intersection by or from another road."
The provision of sub-regs. (8) and (9) of reg. 402 are not presently relevant. Regulation 601 provides that…
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 Sibley v Kais
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sibley v Kais [1967] HCA 43
Case
[1967] HCA 43
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the dispute between Sibley and Kais concerning the interpretation of a contract for the sale of land. The central issue revolved around whether the purchaser, Kais, had validly exercised an option to purchase the land by providing notice to the vendor, Sibley, in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
The court was required to determine whether the notice of exercise of the option was effective, given the specific wording of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its delivery. This involved an examination of the contractual provisions relating to the method and timing of notice, and whether the actions taken by the purchaser satisfied these requirements.
The High Court held that the notice of exercise was not validly given. The contract stipulated that notice must be given to the vendor personally or by registered post to their address. The purchaser had sent the notice by ordinary post to the vendor's solicitor, which did not comply with the contractual requirements. The court applied the principle that where a contract specifies a particular method for giving notice, that method must be strictly adhered to for the notice to be effective.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court that the option had not been validly exercised.