Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 8 (3 March 1959)(1959) 101 CLR 298
[1959] ALR 367
(Judgment by: Taylor J.)
Jones
v Dunkel
Judges:
Dixon C.J.
Kitto
TaylorMenzies
Windeyer JJ.
Subject References:
Negligence
Action
Collision between motor vehicles
No direct evidence of negligence
Matter of inference from proved facts
Sufficiency of facts to support inference
Practice
Direction to jury
Inference of negligence open on proved circumstances
Whether inference should be drawn
Defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn
Failure of defendant to give evidence
What reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference
Nature of direction to jury
Practice
Non-suit
Verdict by direction
History
Application in New South Wales
Judgment date: 3 March 1959
Judgment by:
Taylor J.
TAYLOR J. I agree with the Chief Justice in thinking that there was no evidence before the jury sufficient to support the cause of action sued upon. The contrary view regards the evidence as capable of establishing inferentially that the collision between the two vehicles in question was caused by the second respondent allowing or causing the vehicle under his control to move, to some unspecified extent, over the centre of the road. After a careful examination of the evidence I am unable to perceive any warrant for such an inference from the proved facts. Indeed, in my view, that conclusion cannot be reached except by assuming initially and without justification that the second respondent was grossly negligent in rounding the curve in the vicinity of the collision. In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed on this ground. (at p309)