The defendant appealed by case stated against a conviction for driving a lorry without due care and attention, leading to the death of another road user. There had been an unexplained swing of the rear of his trailer out into the path of the other vehicle.
Held: It was plainly open to the magistrates to make this finding of fact in the terms in which they made it and it could not be impugned.
 EWHC 247 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Wright v Wenlock 1971
The court set out the circumstances in which, in the absense of an explanation, the only proper inference is careless driving.
Lord Parker CJ said ‘the facts of a particular case may be such that, in the absence of some explanation the only . .
Cited – Butty v Davey 1972
Where a defendant provided an explanation of an accident which was not fanciful, he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. . .
Cited – Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat PC 24-May-1988
There had been a crossover collision on a dual carriageway.
Held: The court considered the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Held: Where a defendant adduces evidence, that evidence must be evaluated to see if it is still reasonable to draw . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 March 2021; Ref: scu.184954