HOLT V. HARRIS

ove HOLE

cence teen HARRIS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT .

_ f i | ADELAIDE REGISTRY i FILED \ 23 AUG 1954 | Fudgment delivered at. SY@ney

fh i

OLT vy. _ HARRIS

ORDER

Appeal allowed with costs. Discharge the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. In

lieu thereof order that the appeal to the said Full Cart be al lowed with costs and that the judgment of Mayo J. be set aside i

and in lieu thereof there be judgment in the action for the plaintiff for £1250 damages with costs.

preset

ON C.J.

D

HOLT Ve HARRIS.

This appeal turms altogether on a question of contributory negligence, The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the action, in the early darkness of a May night rode an autocycle, not a motor bicycle, but a bicycle propelled by power, along a poorly illumintated street in an Adelaide suburb, a street which though not well illuminated carried some traffic. He collided with the rear of a semi-trailer in the dark and was seriously injured. The semi-trailer was a wide vehicle unlighted, parked with its inner side two feet six inches from the kerb ani extending well out into that half of the roadway. Its width was eight feet and probably its outer side was somewhat more than ten feet from the kerb. The light of the autocycle was said to throw a beam twenty- three feet ahead. The appellant failed in his action to recover damages from the owner of the semi-trailer, although he left it parked unlighted in the dark, on the ground that he was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to see it. It appeared from the appellant's evidence that just before he collided with the semi-trsiler a cyclist had overtaken him and had pedalled past him and that they had exchanged greetings. The cyclist, who by that time was ahead of him but to his right, called "look out", just before he collided with the obstructing vehicle. I am unable to agree in the decision that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence and thet he was on that ground disentitled to succeed in the action.