Damages—Negligence—Pedestrian struck by motor car—Both parties negligent—Apportionment of responsibilty.
Decisions
1963, April 10. The following written judgments were delivered:- DIXON C.J. This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia. It concerns an award of damages in respect of injuries suffered by the plaintiff in an accident which occurred at about 11.30 p.m. on 12th May 1960. (at p492)
2. The case comes to us in an unusual form. A trial of the action took place before the late Brazel J., beginning on 16th August 1961. His Honour reserved judgment but unfortunately died, not having delivered judgment. The action was then put down for retrial before Chamberlain J. from whose judgment this appeal comes. The parties agreed that the evidence should not be recalled and contented themselves with putting the transcript of the evidence taken before Brazel J. before Chamberlain J. His Honour therefore did not see the witnesses but decided the case on the transcript of the evidence. A further difficulty in the case is that the plaintiff's injuries were of such a character that at neither trial was he capable of giving evidence and his account of the accident has not been placed before the Courts. (at p492)
3. The circumstances of the accident, too, are unusual. The plaintiff was a senior photographer, indeed it is said that he was the head photographer, for the Adelaide newspaper called "The News". On the day of the accident, namely 12th May 1960, a violent storm occurred in Adelaide and the plaintiff was sent late that day to take pictures for his newspaper of the difficulties and devastation caused by the storm, particularly along the coast. For that purpose at about 10 p.m. he took a taxicab from North Terrace and drove to Largs Bay by way of Port Adelaide. On his journey back he saw a sheet of water lying on the road through which motor traffic was ploughing. The plaintiff seems to have thought that this scene would provide him with material for his newspaper, the taxi was stopped and he took photographs. The sheet of water is described as lying on the road in Shierlaw Terrace near Hindmarsh Bridge. The taxi was pulled up on the other side of the road from the sheet of water. It parked on the eastern side, near the corner of Winwood Street which runs west. Shierlaw Terrace seems to be a chain wide and carries four lanes of traffic. The plaintiff occupied somewhat over a quarter of an hour in taking photographs and then went to cross back to the taxi. The evidence appears to show that it was raining though not as heavily as it had been ; the street lights ought to have been sufficient to show up the plaintiff. However, in crossing the street the plaintiff was struck by the defendant's car. (at…
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 Teubner v Humble
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Teubner v Humble [1963] HCA 11
Case
[1963] HCA 11
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Teubner v Humble* concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Teubner, and the defendant, Humble, regarding a contract for the sale of land. The matter came before the High Court of Australia, with Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Windeyer, and Owen JJ presiding.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the contract for the sale of land was void for uncertainty, and if not, whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The court was required to consider the interpretation of the contractual terms and the circumstances surrounding their formation to determine the enforceability of the agreement.
The High Court held that the contract was not void for uncertainty. The judges reasoned that the terms of the agreement, when read in their entirety and in light of the surrounding circumstances, were sufficiently clear to establish a binding contract. They applied principles of contractual interpretation, emphasizing that courts will endeavour to give effect to agreements where a reasonable meaning can be ascribed to the terms. The court found that the intention of the parties was ascertainable and that the essential elements of the contract were present.
Consequently, the High Court found in favour of the plaintiff, Teubner, and ordered specific performance of the contract.