Hawthorne v Hillcoat

(2008) 51 MVR 523; [2008] NSWCA 340

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Motor vehicle accident
4. › Standard of reasonable skill and care
5. › Driver striking pedestrian on road at night
6. › Whether driver negligent in failing to reduce speed in poorly lit area
7. › Whether inability to stop in time for unseen pedestrian constitutes breach of duty
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Motor vehicle accident
4. › Standard of care for drivers at night
5. › Scope of principle in Manley v Alexander (2005) 80 ALJR 413
6. › Whether principle requires driver to slow to speed permitting avoidance of any unseen hazard
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact by trial judge
4. › Expert evidence
5. › Whether trial judge erred in preferring one expert over another

Quick Take

The principle in Manley v Alexander [2005] HCA 79 at [12] — that a driver must control speed and direction so as to know what is happening in the vicinity in time to react — does not impose a standard of perfection or require a driver to slow to a speed that would enable avoidance of any unseen hazard. The words 'may know' mean 'is in a reasonable position to know', which is itself a standard of reasonable skill and care. A driver is not negligent merely because, with hindsight, a slower speed would have avoided the collision, where there was no particular reason to expect a pedestrian on the road at that time and place.