Doonan v Beacham [1953] HCA 38

Appl Neeys v State

(Leshan

H. C, or A.

MeLpourns, June 15, 16.

Williams CUE Webb,

Fullagar,

Kitto and Taylor JJ.

HIGH COURT (1953.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

DOONAN . A > : . : i - APPELLANT ;

Derenpant, AND

BEACHAM. : 4 : : C i é ResponpEnrT.

PLarmntiFr,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

Negligence—Sufficiency of case to go to jury—Running down case—Particulars of negligence specifying several items of negligence—Bvidence warranting a finding that defendant guilty of negligence in the respect stated in either one or other of

items—But not in respect stated in any one particular item separately.

Although a plaintiff in an action for negligence must make out his allega-

tions of negligence within the limits of the particulars he has given, yet, if

on the whole of the evidence which is properly admis

sible the jury can properly

e taken some

find that the damage was caused by negligence which must hav form falling within the scope of the particulars, it is no answer to the plaintiff's claim that the evidence does not enable the jury to find that the accident

was due to any particular one of the causes itemised in the particulars. 'The function of particulars in an action for negligence discussed.

Decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Full Court)

aflirmed.

Apprat from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

On 3rd April 1952, Margaret Campbell Beacham commenced an action, as plaintiff, in the Supreme Court of Victoria against William J. Doonan, as defendant. The plaintiff claimed the sum of £5,000 damages for negligence. The statement of claim, so far as material was as follows: (1) On or about 9th August 1951 the plaintiff was struck down by a motor truck driven by the defendant whilst walking at the intersection of Flinders and Swanston Streets, Melbourne. (2) The collision was due to the negligent driving of the defendant. Particulars of negligence :—(a) driving at an