A trial judge's finding that a witness has lied to reduce personal responsibility is inconsistent with a finding that the same witness has no obvious reason to lie about the plaintiff's involvement, where the lie about the plaintiff's involvement would serve the same purpose of reducing moral culpability. Such an internal conflict in reasoning constitutes an erroneous reasoning process warranting appellate intervention. The question whether merely knowingly travelling in a stolen vehicle displaces the ordinary duty of care owed by a driver to a passenger was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.