Where a trial judge has had the advantage of seeing physical demonstrations by a witness of how an incident occurred, an appellate court will be reluctant to disturb the trial judge's assessment of the facts, even where the medical evidence tends to support the appellant's account. Inconsistencies between a plaintiff's evidence at trial and prior statements to medical professionals and ambulance officers may properly ground a finding that the plaintiff has not discharged the onus of proof in an intentional tort claim. The dissent (Davies AJA) illustrates an alternative approach emphasising objective facts and medical evidence where the trial judge was unable to choose between conflicting oral testimony.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.