Hawke's Bay Motor Co Ltd v Russell: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Date formats |
m Normalize {{Multiple issues}}: Remove {{Multiple issues}} for only 1 maintenance template(s): Refimprove |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}} |
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}} |
||
{{refimprove|date=October 2014}}{{orphan|date=October 2014}} |
|||
{{Infobox Court Case |
{{Infobox Court Case |
Revision as of 18:50, 31 May 2020
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2014) |
Hawke's Bay Motor Co Ltd v Russell | |
---|---|
Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
Full case name | Hawke's Bay Motor Company Limited v Russell |
Citation(s) | [1972] NZLR 542 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Beattie J |
Keywords | |
negligence |
Hawke's Bay Motor Co Ltd v Russell [1972] NZLR 542 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability in negligence, and the legal concept of res ipsa loquitur [1]
Background
A bus owned by Hawkes Bay Motor Company was struck on a bend in a road by a car driven on the wrong side of the road by Russell. They later sued Russell for the cost of the damage, to which Russell successfully defended on the basis that he had blacked out due to a medical condition.
HBMC appealed that under res ipsa loquitur, that due to the facts here, the onus of proof should be of Russell to prove the medical condition.
Held
The court ruled that this doctrine did not apply here.
References
- ^ McLay, Geoff (2003). Butterworths Student Companion Torts (4th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN 0-408-71686-X.