wrote in message
news:ai12q1hcq770caf2tmqsapar3rhjklq365@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
This is different to a civil case which could have been attempted against
you by the drunk.
|