High Court of Australia
eam
HL J, Green, Gort. Print, Melb.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.
SHITE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.
Judgment delivered at... CEBOTRR |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. LATHAM oT
This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Richards of the Supreme Court of South ustralia given in an action brought by a cyclist against a motorist for damages for negligence. His Honour gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the cause of the accident which happened was the negligence of the defendant, and that there had been no contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was riding a cycle at dusk, not in darkness, in a southerly direction down a street known as Second Avenue (Royston Park). This street ran inte Lambert Road, which ran east and west. Almost, but not quite, opposite Second averme (Royston Park) was Second Averme (Joslin) which the cyclist intended to enter after crossing Lambert Road. The motorist was driving in a vesterly direction along Lambert Road, approaching that part of the road which was entered from Second Averme (Royston Park) and Second Avenne (Joslin). Each party was on his proper side of the road. The learned judge found, and there was ample evidence to support the finding in the admissions of the defendant himself, that the defendant was negligent, in that he did not keep a proper look-out as he approached the intersection. Further, His Honour found that the defendant infringed sec. 124 of the Road Traffic Act in not following a course as near as practicable to the left-hand side of Lambe#t Road along which he was driving. The defendant's offside wheel, His Honour found, and the evidence supports the finding, was about on the centre line of the road. His Honour was of opinion that there had been no breach of sec. 131 of the Act, which deals with the approach of vehicles to intersections in circumstances when there 1s a possibility of danger. Without absolutely deciding the matter, i think that there is a very great deal to be said for the contention that there was also a breach of this provision. But, in any case, the other negligence to which I have referred - not keeping a proper look-out, and a breach of sec. 124, that breach being prima
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