On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:40:36 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2005/79.html
>
> Essentially, the facts are that at night, a truck driver ran over a
> drunk who was lying face down along the middle of the road, and dressed
> in dark clothing. The truck driver had veered across the road to avoid
> the risk of hitting another drunk who had stepped onto the carriageway.
>
> The person who was run over survived, and sued. At first instance, the
> case was dismissed. This was overturned by a 2-1 split on appeal, albeit
> with 70% of the negligence attributed to the person, and only 30% to the
> truck driver. The High Court has affirmed the appeal court's decision,
> this time with a 3-2 split
>
> I'm inclined to side with the minority in the High Court, who wanted to
> reinstate the decision of the court of first instance.
>
> While there's no question that a duty of care exists, it's far from
> clear to me that it's negligent to fail to avoid hitting an unexpected
> object in the middle of a dark road, particularly where the driver's
> attention is legitimately diverted towards another hazard.
>
> I think the states should legislate to reverse this decision - I'm just
> not sure what any proposed legislation should say.
The decision was crazy. I see it as 100% the fault of the drunk.
I was involved in a similar thing nearly 30 years ago in a country town. I ran over a person laying
on a dark street (streetlights were few and far between). The attending Police recognised the
deceased as a well known drunk and no charges were laid against me.
|