On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:51:15 +0000, Jeffry wrote:
> Would this case have essentially been between the drunk's health insurer
> and the government compulsory personal injury insurance thing (whatever
> it is called - 'nominal defendant')?
It seems to be between the truck driver (ie his insurer, as usual) and the
drunk. If you read the facts in the decision of the WA Supreme Court, the
driver simply didn't see the drunk, the drunk remembers nothing, and a
witness (also drunk) was not located.
It's a standard negligence scenario.
> If so, you would think they could come to a better way of working such
> stuff out, rather than wasting a whole heap of time on barrister fees on
> a bit of a non-issue...
Working out what? There was nothing to work out. Most of the argument
was about the use of a written statement by a person not called as a
witness (the unlocated drunk). This is a typical case of the kind that
should not get to the full court of the High Court. |