Jeffry wrote:
>
> "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.
Correct;
>
> > 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.
The case hinges on this:
"One can readily accept, as his Honour did, that as the [appellant]
drove his vehicle along Middleton Road towards the scene of the
accident his attention would naturally have been drawn to the figure
of Cameron Turner standing on the side of the road ..... However, that
does not extinguish the [appellant's] duty of care to all users of the
road, ...."
This passage (in its entirely) was quoted by the dissenting judges,
but then they went on to say:
"It assumes that a motorist is not entitled to give attention to a
particular and potentially dangerous emergency situation in priority
to an apparently benign one."
It says, that one thing can have a priority, but not to the exclusion
of other things - which is exactly what the three judges dismissing
the appeal held also.
One should note that even in that passage the dissenting judges
actually support the statement of the Supreme Court I quoted first
(and the other 3 justices) - "does not extinguish the duty of care".
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
----------------------------------------------------------------- |