Where a plaintiff leads unchallenged expert evidence that a precautionary measure was available in other jurisdictions before the accident, and the defendant does not cross-examine or lead evidence on cost, inconvenience, or impracticability, the trial judge is entitled to infer that the measure was feasible and that cost and inconvenience were not countervailing considerations. A defendant who fails to object to an alternative case when it is opened and led at trial, and instead engages with it in cross-examination and submissions, cannot later complain that the case was not properly before the court.
The full text is available to signed-in members.