High Court of Australia
JUDGMENT ,
HIGH COURT Of AUSTRALIA.
COURT ¢
(pp_l to 5)
EARKER v CORKHILL
ee
KR JUSTICE ISAACS.
Delivasd 12-9. (429
PARR vy ___CORKHITL,
JUDGLENT , toe
About 7 ofcloek in the morning of June 7,192s, a collision occurred on the Cotter Road Canberra,between a mofor eyele riaaen oy tne plaintir£g and a motor car driven vy the derendant.
Tne plaintirf sustained severe injuries owing as he says to the de-~
-Xeunx fendant's negligence in travelling on ner wrong side of the road, The defendant denies negligence, the case was very ably and fairly presented on voti sides, the plain- -tiff's story in brief is this.He says he was travelling from Canbcrre to Mount Stromlo,with a friend named Prior riding pillion behind him, The road was formed for a width of about 174 teet,having a sort of rise at the edge of the formation,varying from 6 inches to 24 feet in height and beyond the edge of the formation there was loose or rough ground, he says he was travelling well on his proper side about 2 or 3 feet from the edge of the formation, The morning everyone agrees was very foggy which lessened visibility with respect to approaching traffic, wWiiile travelling along a straight portion of the road tne plaintiff saye,he suddenly saw a motor car approaching him at a kimkas distance of say 50 feet, 1t was directly in front of him,that is on its wrong sdde,about 2 or 3 feet from the edge of the formation. Having regard to the neture of the ground, and the fact of a opasneer: behind hin,the plaintiff considered it practically impossible to turn Ap vont to his left,and, as to continue straight ahead appeared ,certain disas
-ter
disaster,nis only reasonable course was to move over to the centre of tne road, As he did so,the motor car did the same thing, and tnen the plaine -tirf tried to get oack to the left,out was struck oy the defendants mud-gtard and continuing his course the length of the carp his right leg jambed between the cycle and the running board of the car, The cycle fell over. lrior was precipitated over the plaintiff and the plaintiff was rendered insensivle and his right leg was fracture.. Prior corroborated the plaintiff in saying the car was on the wrong sid@,------<-8r=-9---- The defendant's account is quite different, and is substantially as follows, She with her sister and some infant members of her family were proceeding towards Canberra. She travelled strictly in the centre of the road.8he first observed the motor cycle at a distance which I take to ve about 50 feet away, It was then travelling in the centre of tne road running straight towards her, she pulled to mer left,ner own side. A little after,the cycle altered its course vy turning towazds her. She jambed her brakes on and pracfically stopped. At thés point the plain- ~tiff's cycle crashed into her mudguard and the damage ensued. Wien the crash occurred, which was while the car was still on the formation and aS £uxxa far as she could eof, the defendant's proper side of the forma- -tion,her sister got out,the brakes were released and the car went
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate