High Court of Australia
©.1078/88
W. M. Houston, Govt. Print. Melb.
J
BOARD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judgment delivered. a (ELBOURNE.... on... TUESDAY, 11TH. MARCH,...1958.
MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BOARD
v.
POSTNECK AND ANOTHER
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
LBOUR} METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BO,
Ve
POSTNECK AND ANOTHER
sUDGuENT DIXON _¢.J
WEBB J. OT.
TAYLOR J.
MELBOURNE & METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BOARD
Ve
POSTNECK AND ANOTHER.
The first named respondent is the widow of Eugen Postneck, deceased, who died as the result of injuries received immediately after alighting from a tram-car in Burke Road near its intersection with Cotham Road at Kew near Melbourne. Briefly the facts are that during the afternoon of the 15th July 1955 Mrs. Postneck and her husband were passengers in a tram-car as it travelled in a northerly | direction along Burke Road. At the same time there was | proceeding in the same direction along Burke Road a motor \ truck to which was attached a low level loader. This vehicle was being driven by the respondent Westcott and the tram was under the management and control of servants of the appellant. It would seem that the vehicles were not far apart as they proceeded and they arrived in the vicinity of the intersection at more or less the same time. The intersection marks the terminus of the tramway at its northern end and at the spot. where the tram-car came to a stop there is an ordinary stopping place for passengers who wish to alight. But when the tram stopped on this occasion the rear portion of the truck and the low level loader were stationary alongside the tram. There was some dispute concerning the precise positions of the two vehicles in relation to one another but there was abundant evidence that, as is probable, the rear wheels of the low level loader were in a little more southerly position than the doorways | of the tram and that the cabin of the truck was somewhat in advance of the front of the tram. The tram doorways, three in number, were situated about the centre of the tram. The tram having stopped the plaintiff and her husband proceeded to alight. In so doing they could not have failed to observe
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