Anderson v Joyce - [2019] WADC 121

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ANDERSON -v- JOYCE [2019] WADC 121
CORAM:   HERRON DCJ
HEARD:   24, 25 & 26 JUNE 2019
DELIVERED          :   26 AUGUST 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 359 of 2016
BETWEEN:   GILLIAN MARGARET ANDERSON
Plaintiff
AND
CLARA LOUISE JOYCE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Fatal Accidents Act 1959 (WA) - Motor vehicle accident - Cyclist - Negligence - Contributory negligence

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5B, s 5K
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 79C, s 79C(1), s 79C(2a)
Fatal Accidents Act 1959 (WA)
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947 (WA), s 4(1)

Result:

The deceased is not contributorily negligent and the plaintiff is entitled to 100% of her damages to be assessed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr T Lampropoulos SC & Mr B G Bradley
Defendant	:	Mr M D Cuerden SC & Mr D M G Burton

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Bradley Bayly Legal
Defendant	:	SRB Legal

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Apostolic Church Australia Limited v Dixon [2018] WASCA 146
O'Connor v Insurance Commission of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 95
RTA v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330

HERRON DCJ:

Introduction

At about 3.00 pm on 12 May 2013 Roger Norman Hill was riding a bicycle along Broome Street in a northerly direction towards the roundabout intersection with Eric Street in Cottesloe. At the same time the defendant, Clara Louise Joyce, was driving a BMW sedan in an easterly direction along Eric Street towards the roundabout intersection with Broome Street. Mr Hill was therefore approaching the intersection from Ms Joyce's right. Give way signs regulated traffic entering into the roundabout. As Mr Hill rode his bicycle into the roundabout he collided with Ms Joyce's vehicle on the northern side of the roundabout, as a result of which he was knocked from his bicycle.
By reason of the collision Mr Hill suffered various injuries including a chest injury and a penetration wound to his heart which resulted in his death on 23 May 2013.
The defendant admits she was negligent in causing the collision and Mr Hill's death, but pleads the collision, and Mr Hill's injuries and death, were caused or contributed to by his negligence.[1]
[1] Pars 3 and 4 re-amended defence.
At the time of his death Mr Hill was married to the plaintiff, Gillian Margaret Anderson. Ms Anderson brings this action pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1959 for the benefit of herself and the dependent children of herself and Mr Hill.[2] Ms Anderson denies Mr Hill was negligent in the manner in which he was riding his bicycle.
[2] Pars 7 and 8 statement of claim.
Therefore, the issue before me is whether Mr Hill was contributorily negligent in causing the collision and his injuries which in turn caused his death and if so, what is an appropriate apportionment of liability.
For the reasons which follow, I find Mr Hill was not negligent in his manner of riding his bicycle and that his manner…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Joyce

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Joyce [2019] WADC 121
Case: [2019] WADC 121
Decision Date: 26 AUGUST 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Anderson v Joyce, the deceased cyclist, Mr Anderson, was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant, Mr Joyce. The plaintiff, Mrs Anderson, as the deceased's widow, brought an action for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1959 (WA). The central issue was whether Mr Anderson's actions contributed to the accident, potentially reducing the plaintiff's entitlement to damages. The court needed to determine whether the deceased was negligent and if so, whether that negligence was contributory to the accident.

The court examined the evidence and found that Mr Anderson was not negligent in the circumstances leading up to the collision. The evidence indicated that Mr Anderson was riding his bicycle in a manner consistent with the rules of the road, and there was no indication that he was speeding or otherwise behaving recklessly. Mr Joyce, on the other hand, was found to have breached his duty of care by failing to keep a proper lookout for oncoming traffic, which directly contributed to the accident. The court concluded that Mr Anderson's actions were not a cause of the accident and therefore he was not contributorily negligent.

Given that Mr Anderson was not contributorily negligent, the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to receive 100% of the damages to be assessed. The court emphasised that the deceased's actions did not contribute to the circumstances leading to the accident, and therefore his estate should not be liable for any part of the damages. The court acknowledged the significant impact of the accident on the plaintiff and her family, and ordered that the damages be assessed in a subsequent proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

The deceased is not contributorily negligent and the plaintiff is entitled to 100% of her damages to be assessed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.