High Court of Australia
//
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
on BVANS AND ANOTHER —
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ORIGINAL
Judgment delivered at. Syaney _ on.. Tuesday, 4th February, 196%.
'A.C. Brooks, Government Printer, Melbourne 6.763960
MAKEHAM Ve
EVANS AND ANOTHER
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
MAKERAM Ve
EVANS AND ANOTHER
TAYLOR J.
el
MAKER AM Ve
EVANS AND ANOTHER
I have had the opportunity of considering the reasons prepared by my brother Menzies and I agree with him that the appeal should be dismissed. I have, however, entertained some doubt whether we should interfere with the finding made by the learned judge of the first instance that the rear lights on Makeham's truck were not alight at the time of the collision. Nevertheless on the whole I have come to the conclusion that the finding was so much based on matters of credibility that it would not be proper for an appeal court to reverse that finding. Subject to these observations I agree with
the reasons and conclusions of Menzies J.
MAKEHAM
ve
EVANS AND ANOTHER
JUDGMENT MENZIES J.
MAKEHAM
ve
EVANS AND ANOTHER
A collision occurred in Ebden Street, Canberra, after dark on 23rd August 1960 when a motor-car driven by one Baulk in a northerly direction ran into the back of a truck which one Makeham had parked on the western side of the roadway. The plaintiff Evans, who was a passenger in Baulk's car, was seriously injured and sued both Baulk and Makeham for damages for negligence. Where the collision occurred the roadway of Ebden Street was 27 feet wide. It was not well lit. The truck, which was about 8 feet wide, was parked about one foot from the kerb, in gear, with its brakes on and facing in the same @irection as Baulk wes driving.
There was no doubt about the negligence of Baulk. He must have been driving very fast for, after braking his car so severely as to leave a skid mark 27 feet long, the impact moved the heavy truck about 21 feet. Not only was Baulk travelling very fast but he was not keeping a proper look-out for, although his lights were on, his evidence was that he did not see the parked truck until he was within 30 feet of it.
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