PEARSE V. LANSER AND ANOTHER

IN IE HIGH COURT OF AUSTI4LIA

a PRARSB a

nw ANSBR AND ANOR 6

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at_S¥PNBY_ on. FRIBAX 27th MAY 1960

W.-M, Houston, Gort. Print, Melb,

@|

" PEARSE ve

LANSER AND ANOTHER

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

PEARSE ve

LANSER_AND ANOTHER

STUDGMENT DIXON C.J. 'OJ. MENZiIes J.

PEARSE

LANSER AND ANOTHER

This appeal arises from an action brought in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the recovery of damages for personal injuries caused by the defendant's negligence.

The pilaintiff who is the appellant is a widow; not much short of six years ago, to be exact on 12th November 1954, as she was erossing Parramatta Road, Croydon, she was run down by an Austin panel van and badly injured. The defendant is the driver of the panel van. At the trial the jury found a verdict for the defendant, and an appeal by the plaintiff from the verdict was dismissed in the Supreme Court. From the order dismissing that appeal the plaintiff now appeals as of right to this Court.

The circumstances of the accident were very simple and it was fully investigated at the trial but it'is said for the appellant that a new trial should be ordered because the judge told the jury that the defendant's case was confirmed by the evidence given by an independent witness whom the defendant called, whereas according to the argument of the plaintiff's counsel, that evidence properly considered had no such effect.

The appellant relies on a further point. The learned judge who presided at the trial (Kinsella J.) left to the jury an argument presented to them on behalf of the defendant that, on a certain hypothesis, they should find that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; at the end of his argument in this court the plaintiff's coursel took the point that in doing so the learned judge misdirected the jury. A brief statement of the facts will suffice to explain how these two points arise.