Alldridge v Mulcahey [1950] HCA 31

81 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 337

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

ALLDRIDGE 4 j 2 . : . APPELLANT ; PLAINTIFF, AND MULCAHEY AND ANOTHER . é é . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND.

Negligence—Contributory negligence —Highway—Accident—Pedestrian walking on yO, op A. roadway at night—Motor car proceeding in same direction—Wet weather—No 1959, windscreen wiper—Driver's vision obscured by raindrops on windscreen | ——

magnified by bright headlights of approaching car—Knowledge of driver that BRISBANE, roadway used by pedestrians—Duty of driver—Duty of pedestrian walking on JUne 15, 16. roadway at night. Sypyey,

A pedestrian walking along a bitumen roadway, two to three feet from Aug. 30.

the edge thereof, at night, after it had been raining, was knocked down by yfonicman,

Webb and' Kitto JJ.

a motor car proceeding in the same direction, He was aware of the car's approach and also observed another motor vehicle coming in the opposite direction with bright headlights. The driver of the car changed his course d from

from the centre of the road to his left-hand side, reduced his sp twelve to ten miles per hour and saw the pedestrian when six fect away, but although he then swerved sharply to his right the car struck the pedestrian. 'There was no windscreen wiper on the car and the driver's vision was obscured

by raindrops on the windscreen magnified by the headlights of the approach-

ing vehicle. In an action against the owner and the driver of the car the trial judge found that the driver drove the car at a time and place when and where he should have known that there was a possibility of pedestrians walking on the roadway. Holding that a pedestrian had a right to walk on the roadway, but was under a duty to take care of his own safety, the trial judge in the result found that the collision was caused by the combined negligence of the pedestrian and the driver and entered judgment for the defendants.