TODISCO V. FINNEY

i IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TODISCO

Judgment delivered at____MELBOURNE on... PRIDAY,..2nd JUNE.1961 0

WM, Houston, Gort, Print, Melb,

TODIsco

Appeal allowed with costs. Discharge the order dated the twenty-first day of September 1960 of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. In lieu thereof order that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of four thousand two hundred and sixty pounds (£4260) with the costs of the action and that the said sum of four thousand two hundred and sixty pounds (£4260) be apportioned as follows:- Two thousand eight hundred pounds (£2800) for the benefit of the plaintiff, two hundred and seventy-five pounds (£275) for the benefit of the infant Alessio, three hundred and thirty-five pounds (£335) for the benefit of the infant Angiolina, four hundred pounds (£400) for the benefit of the infant Rosina and four hundred and fifty pounds (£450) for the benefit of the infant Giuseppina. So much of the said sum of four thousand two hundred and sixty pounds (£4260) as has been apportioned for the benefit of the aforesaid infants to remain' in or to be paid into Court. Cause remitted to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to make such further order or ordersas may be just, consistently with this judgment, with liberty to apply to the said Supreme Court with respect to the monies paid into Court and to the sums held or to be held in Court as aforesaid for the benefit of the said infants,

and generally.

TODISCO

Ve

FINNEY

ZUDGMENT KITTO J. TAYLOR J MENZIES J.

TODISCO

Ve

The judgment with which we are concerned upon this appeal was given in an action which arose out of an accident that took place on 27th April 1959 at about 4.30 in the afternoon at the intersection of University Avenue and Ellery Circuit, Canberra, when a Holden motor-car driven by the respondent in a westerly direction along University Avenue towards the inter- section collided with a bicycle ridden in a northerly direction along Ellery Circuit towards the intersection by the husband of the appellant. The cyclist was killed and his widow, on behalf of herself and their four children, brought an action in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory claiming that her husband's death had been caused by the negligence of the respondent. Joske J. found that the accident was' caused by the negligence of both the cyclist and the car driver and decided that the cyclist's share of responsibility was seven-tenths and the car driver's three-tenths. Having assessed damages at £7,600, his Honour reduced this amount by seven-tenths to £2,280,