HARRISON v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1992] NSWCA 106

HARRISON v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, MEAGHER and CRIPPS JJA 13 August 1992, 13 August 1992 [1992] NSWCA 106

MOTOR VEHICLES — negligence passenger's claim — finding that vehicle rolled into intersection — driver did not see illuminated headlights of approaching vehicle — held: negligence and causation established — plaintiff entitled to verdict. APPEAL — rehearing — not necessary to show "plainly wrong" where credibility of witnesses not involved. NEGLIGENCE — causation — motor vehicle collision. MOTOR VEHICLES — negligence — collision at T intersection plaintiff passenger in one vehicle — trial judge (Sully J) finds that such vehicle rolled forward past stop sign into intersection — finds that driver knew of sign and intended but failed to obey it — finds that driver did not see headlights of vehicle approaching on his right although they were illuminated — concludes that plaintiff failed to prove that negligence of his driver caused the collision enters judgment for defendant driver — on appeal — held: (Cripps JA; Kirby P and Meagher JA concurring): Upon the facts found, the plaintiff passenger had proved a relevant connection between the negligence found and the collision causing his injuries and was entitled to judgment. APPEAL — rehearing — review of facts — whether necessary for appellant, to disturb conclusion of trial judge in a case not involving assessment of credibility of witnesses, to establish that trial judge was "clearly" or "plainly" wrong — held: (1) (by the Court): In the facts of the case it was unnecessary to decide the point as the judge was plainly and clearly wrong; (2) (per Kirby P, Meagher JA concurring): Semble It is not necessary for the appellant to show clear or plain error. Warren v Coombes and Anor (1979) 142 CLR 531, 551 referred to. NEGLIGENCE — causation — necessity to prove — sufficiency of evidence.