Irizawa v Corner

There was a collision on a highway after intense snowfall, wherein the case depended on the definition of the ‘“travelled portion of the highway”’ and whether it referred to the ‘10 ft of beaten portion of the highway’ or the ‘whole 22 ft in width of surface of the highway’ (786). It was decided that because the plaintiff had not turned on to the ‘7 or 8 ft of snowcovered highway on the right of the beaten portion but merely to the right-hand side of the beaten 10 ft of the road, the learned Judge [who had originally ruled on the case] held him solely responsible for the collision’ (787).