PATTINSON V. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

ORIGINAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. / {

C

Fy, Leprmnrwen til |

' . q

: | REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

]

PATTING ON

Ve

JUDGMENT.

PATTINSON

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

UMcTIERNAN Je

This is a claim for damages for injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of negligence alleged on the part of the driver of a military truck, the property of the Commonwealth, or, in the alternative, of the negligence alleged on the part of that driver and the driver of a truck the property of the Commonwealth used in connection with work carried out under the National Security (Allied Works) Regulations.

The defendant by its statement of defence put in issue all the allegations in the statement of claim necessary to be sustained to establish the negligence alleged, but subsequently for the purposes of the case the defendant made a number of admissions. These were that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was travelling in the truck used in connection with such works and that it was the property of the Allied Works Council and of the Commonwealth and that it was driven by J. Parry. It was further admitted that the military truck was the property of the Commonwealth and that it was being driven by a servant or agent of the Commonwealth. There is no similar admission with respect to Parry or the business upon which he was engaged when the plaintiff was travelling in the truck. It is established that this truck collided with the military.truck when it was

0 26" femme "9 travelling from Macrosssnto Charters Towers and that the plaintiff,

who was a passenger, was injured in the collision. He suffered

abrasians and sprain to his left knee. "2 telen wwtetu Ly Arup Ae

ag met pets Rear foi Ba nye | of Bhatt antrey Kann nrirntngs any 7 eeee

forth, mutuet, The evidence adduced on the issue of negligence is