"Heretic" wrote in message
news:40cchoF199r15U1@individual.net...
> 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.
Why wouldn't it be the Compulsory Govt Insurer defending the claim?
My passing comment on this case was basically that it seems like a prime
candidate for alternative resolution. I would prefer my insurance premiums
going back into the fund, rather than paying for High Court appeals...
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.
|