Jones v Capaldi [1956] HCA 37

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ. Jones v Capaldi [1956] HCA 37

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

July 31 Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ.

This appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland relates to what is wholly a question of fact. It is an appeal by a defendant in an action of damages for personal injuries against an order of the Full Court reversing a judgment of Townley J. who, after a hearing without a jury, had entered judgment for the defendant in the action. The personal injuries in respect of which the plaintiff has recovered damages arose from a collision between a motor cycle ridden by the plaintiff and a utility truck driven by the defendant. The collision occurred near Mareeba at the junction of the Dimbulah Road with Byrne Street. Byrne Street makes a junction with Dimbulah Road at a very acute angle. The defendant drove his utility truck along Byrne Street towards Mareeba. When he reached the junction he made a right hand turn in order to round the corner into Dimbulah Road, a proceeding which necessarily meant making almost a "V turn". The plaintiff was at the same time riding his motor cycle along Dimbulah Road towards Mareeba. The result was a collision in which the plaintiff and his motor cycle were injured.

Townley J., having taken time to consider his judgment, found himself unable to reach an affirmative conclusion as to where the responsibility for the collision lay. He was not satisfied upon a balance of probability of the true explanation of the accident or of the manner in which it exactly occurred.

His Honour began his judgment by stating the nature of the case and the conflicting versions of the parties as to the respective courses they pursued. It is unnecessary to set out the detailed account they respectively gave. A very brief statement of the opposing versions they gave is enough. On the one hand the plaintiff represents the accident as due to the defendant making a sharp turn round the acute angled corner so that his truck hit the left side of the plaintiff's motor cycle as the plaintiff swerved to his right. On the other side the defendant represents the plaintiff as riding with his head down to avoid some rain and as suddenly looking up and seeing the defendant's truck as it was making a right hand turn well out from the actual corner. He says that he, the defendant, stopped but that the plaintiff swerved over to his right and hit the front of the truck between the front wheel and the mudguard. The plaintiff denies that his head was down and denies that it was then raining.