"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
news:43a0f8a5$0$17702$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
> Heretic wrote:
>
>> These decisions can't be reversed by local legislation. If that was
>> possible, there would be no need for litigation. You need only go to the
>> pollies and tell the sad story, with appropriate media publicity
>> manufactured for the occasion. Apart from second-guessing the High Court
>
> I wasn't suggesting that the result of this particular case be reversed,
> though perhaps my wording suggested otherwise. I was concerned about the
> precedent, about which see below.
>
>
>> The case turns on its own unique facts, the law was correctly applied,
>> and
>> the case has no precedent value.
>
> Not so sure about that. At the very least, it is a case to which courts
> can look when trying to decide whether there is negligence involved in
> other motor accidents. Essentially, the High Court has supported the WA
> decision to the effect that the standard of care expected of drivers is
> higher than that displayed by this particular driver.
Only in relation to the same fact pattern.
Yet that seems to
> me to be unreasonably second guessing that driver's decision making
> process with the benefit of considerable time to mull over the issues, and
> of course, hindsight.
>
> What the case does demonstrate (yet
>> again) is that the High Court does not want negligence cases coming to it
>> where there is no issue of legal principle involved. You might get these
>> curious cases, but the responsibility for finalising them is in the local
>> appeal court, not the full court of the High Court.
>
> To my mind, the appeal court should have left the first instance decision
> alone. The High Court could have reversed the appeal court's decision on
> that ground, which would have been a good signal to send to appeal courts
> that they are not courts that perform a review on merits, except in
> exceptional circumstances, which this was not.
>
> The first instance judge may have made some errors, but that doesn't mean
> that the result was wrong.
>
> Sylvia.
|