IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA PUBLIC TRUSTEE FOR VICTORIA. _ Ve VERNON v. PUBLIC TRUSTEE FOR VICTORIA Vo VERNON AND ANOTHER, REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Judgment delivered at___ MELBOURNE 'A: Brooks, Government Printer, Malbourne 0.7639/60 Kig rors. yee We Appeals disaiseed with costs. Ve We Ve We These tvo appeals are brought fren gadguente of the cuprene Ceart of Victoria (Gavans 7.) in actions instituted by the renpendents in whieh they alained damages from the Public Trastee for Victoria, an aéuinistrater ad liter of the estate of Jchs Joneyh Melahon deceused, for personal injuries sustained as the result of a collision between two moter vehicles on the Pacific Highway between browin and Warpegal., 'The vehicles in question were being driven respectively by the respondent Keith Harolé Vernon and the deceased Jahn Joueph Hellahen, and the respondent Una Grace Vernon, the wife cf Keith Hereld Vernon, vas a passenger in his vebicle. tn the result Keith Harelé Vernon cusccseded in obtaining judguent for £18,520, his wife obtained judguent for £2,280 and a thivd party clin made egainst Keith Eareld Vernon ia the second aetion was dioniaeed. The wvidence conserning the eanner in which the eallision cecurred vas sceewhat eeanty. daliahen died as @ resalt of the collision ané at the tine of the trial it appeared that toth the respondents were suffering fron eunesia and had no rocollestion of the events leading up te the aceident. Sut there was evicencs upon which the learned trial Judge forned the view that the sole cause of the eeeident was the action of Nuliahen in so driving his vehiale that scae substantial part of it ercssed the Re '¢ entre Line of the Bitumen strip whieh sonstiteated the asin portion of the highway and that, in the circumstances thea prevailing, this eonstiteted a failare to use due care in the sanagenent of his vehisle, The sain boty of the evidence upen whten this eonglusion was reached was the testineny of one Cross wo at the tine was driving a track on the highvay in an casterly divestion tevarts Warvegul, ie said that he observed Vernon's ear appronehing hin in the opposite diresticn when 40 was distant abeut 200 yards. 3% was, he said, prowesding et s normal epeed and was maintaining a steady course with Ate offside wheels apprexiaately two feet or a Little less fren the centve Line of the highway. I% passed the trace which Gress wae driving om its eervest side and innediately afterwards he hearé a lead erash and on locking back "at an angle" from his driving window he sew Neliahon's ear apparently stepped ané Vernon's car "swinging elockwise* tevards Droain on the southern side of the peatvay, Aguerding to Ais evidence the eellision cevarred at a distance of ten to fifteen feet frou the line of the rear of his trash, that is to say, from ite position at the sonent of impact, and 10 seens that the off-sids front of each Vehicle cane inte collision. as Yarnon's ear passed Cress? teusk the latter vehicle wae travelling about "32 or 33 miles per hour and its eff-sise was sone 4'6" trom the centre line". In addition to this testiaeny there vas evidence Goneerning the position of debris on the roaé ené the position uhieh the eave compiled after they had ecu to reste The initial contention advanesé by the appellent was that the evidence was incapable of supporting the inference which the learned trial judge drew. We wegeet this exntention. It is apparent that one of other Venlele eressed to its incorrect side a very short cistanse to the wear of Cross' trusk. There was no reason why Vernon's ear shoulé have done a0 and there is the explicit evidence that an fastant before he had been maintaining a@ steady course on his cerrest side of the road. further, damaGiately efter the collision ceeurred, Cross was able to see beth vehicles locking back and "at an angle" from his dzviving vindeow. 'These observations, alone, are sufficient, we think, to justify the infepense that it was HeMahen's vehiele whieh eressed to ite incaerrest sits of the read and if at Gid a0 in neh close proninity to the trusk ahead of it o situation of iaminent danger to Vernon's eneoning veniele was evested. Sowever, the learned trial judge felt fowtifies tn his eonelusion by sonsideration of the position of the debris and the position of the sare efter they hed cone to rest. Consideration of the uatters advanced by counsel fer the appellant bas not indueed us to think that the inferenes whieb his Honear drew was not epen upen the evidente. On the contrary, we think it was clearly een oni have no doubt that a proper appreciation of the evidenss leads to the conelusion thet his Honoar was right in finding that the collision was caused by the negligence ef Melidacn and that this ves the sole cause of the acciéent, This final cdservation also disposes of the appeliant's eltesnative contention that, upon the evidenes, Vernon whould also have deen held te be responsible. A further ground of appeal was that the damages avaréed to Keith Harold Vernon were exeessive. 'The arganent on this point turned, in the usin, upon the assesement by the learned trial judge ef this respondent's futare seonenic less at £13,000, There was a scnevhat weusual feature in the sase but this was given earefal Gonsideration by bis Roneur and we see ne reasen vig 3 LS @ourt of appeal should interfere. 4 examination of his weasons discloses that he did not set upon any erroneous prineiple and ve think i¢ ts inpeselble to say that the omeunt of damages whieh be awarded exeseded the Limite of @ ecund Ciseretiouary judgeent.