IN| THE HIGH. COURT OF AUSTRALIA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ORAL, vudgment delivered at........ SEE BOURNE nnnsne RM.72/20189° NeGucence — Tlarpeey Of CLE - MppoeTioumenT-- ONE THER UWRERSOANB LE ICk - CARTER AND ANOTHER , ve. RANDELL ORDER (ona ) Appeal dismissed with costs. CARTER AND ANOTHER RANDELL JUDGMENT BARWICK C.J. ORAL CARTER AND ANOTHER ve RANDELL The appellant raises two grounds of appeal, first, that there was no material upon which a jury could be allowed to find that the deceased pedestrian had failed to take reasonable care for his own safety and, secondly, that assuming the verdict to stand the apportionment made by the jury of 75 per cent of responsibility to the pedestrian and only 25 per cent to the motorist defendant was unreasonable. These two propositions were put to the full court and there unanimously rejected. Here Mr. Thomson has taken us through the relevant evidence very carefully and has put the point of view of the appellant in support of both of these grounds, However, having heard all he has said and having observed the evidence to which he has called attention, I am of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed, md I would be content to dismiss it for the same reasons as Mr. Justice Smith as Acting Chief Justice in Victoria dismissed the appeal to that court. CARTER AND ANOTHER' ve RANDELL JUDGMENT McTIERNAN J. CORAL) — CART&eR AND ANOTHER Ve RANDELL I agree. BEVERLEY ETL MSN CART i and DY_ LORRALNS HOALSY (as Executors of the Will of RAYMCND DENTCN CARTER deceased) BARRY REGINALD RANDELL BEVERLEY BILE SN CARTER and WENDY LORRAINS HORLEY (as Executors of the Will of RAYMOND DENTON CARTER deceased) ve BARRY REGINALD RANDELL I agree. JUDGMENT (ORAL). CARTER AND ANOTHER Ve RANDELL GIBBS _J. CARTER AND ANOTHER ve RANDELL I agree, and would only add that had I been required as a trial judge sitting without a jury to determine the deceased's share of responsibility I would not have found it at so large a proportion as seventy-five per cent, However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases that an appellate court will vary an apportionment of responsibility made by a jury whose findings of fact are accepted and which has not been shown to have been mcisled as to the law, and I am unable to hold that the apportionment in the present case was one that no reasonable jury could have reached. CARTER AND ANOTHER v. RANDELL JUDGMENT STEPHEN J. CARTER AND ANOTHER ve RANDELL I agree with what has been said by the Chief Justice. :