NORRIS v BLAKE [1996] NSWCA 402

NORRIS v BLAKE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE, HANDLEY and SHELLER JJA 29-31 July and 1 August 1996, 8 October 1996 [1996] NSWCA 402

Negligence — motor vehicle accident — question whether plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol — evidence as to whether blood/alcohol certificate related to the plaintiff

Contributory negligence — apportionment of responsibility — plaintiff driving too fast in circumstances and failing to keep proper — lookout — driving while under the influence of alcohol

Paul Jonathon Blake (the respondent) received very grave injuries when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 1 December 1986. He claimed the accident was caused by the negligence of Walter Thomas Patmore Norris (the appellant) and he sued to recover damages. The proceedings were heard by Hulme J. The appellant admitted liability and his Honour found that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence. The damages awarded, $45,925,725 in total, were reduced by 25 per cent.

The appellant has appealed challenging both the apportionment and the assessment of damages, this judgment being concerned only with the former. He alleged that his Honour should have found that the respondent was driving while under the influence of alcohol. In the alternative, the appellant sought to lead fresh evidence on the appeal which falsified the basis of his Honour's finding that the respondent was not affected by alcohol. The respondent has cross-appealed, contending that his Honour was in error in finding that he had been negligent. Alternatively, he submitted that his Honour had overlooked an important aspect of the appellant's negligence and that there should be a much smaller finding against the respondent.

Held:

CROSS-APPEAL

(1) respondent's negligence: Having regard to the objective facts and the possible inferences which could be drawn as to the respondent's response to the emergency, it seems clear his Honour was correct to find that the high speed maintained by the respondent was a significant cause of the accident and reflected a significant departure from the standard of reasonable care.