Attard v Hore

[2003] QSC 89

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Attard v Hore & Anor [2003] QSC 089

PARTIES:

LORRETTA KAY ATTARD
(Plaintiff)
v
BENJAMIN PETER HORE
(First Defendant)
and
QBE INSURANCE LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S.30 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application for Damages

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

2 April 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

25 and 26 March 2003

JUDGES:

Cullinane J

ORDER:

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $89,622.38.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES – where collision occurred at uncontrolled intersection – where Plaintiff failed to give right of way to First Defendant’s car – where Plaintiff suffered injury – whether Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in damages

Sibley v Kais (1968) 118 CLR 424, applied

COUNSEL:

G Crow for the Plaintiff
M Liddy for the Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan and Amiet for the Plaintiff
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the Defendants

1. The plaintiff was born on 8.6.68.  She sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred at about 5.30 p.m. on 4.8.98 at the intersection of Byron and Park Streets, Mackay.

1. The plaintiff was driving her Holden Kingswood sedan in a southerly direction in Byron Street, whilst the defendant was driving a Toyota Landcruiser in an easterly direction along Park Street.  There are a number of photos which show the intersection and the approach of each driver, the view which each driver would have had of a vehicle approaching the intersection and the view beyond the intersection for each driver.

1. There were no specific controls in respect of right of way at the intersection.  The plaintiff was on the defendant’s left and thus was under an obligation to yield right of way.

1. According to the plaintiff, she approached the intersection at about 40 to 45 kilometres per hour, slowing down to about 30 to 35 kilometres per hour as she reached the intersection.  She says that when she was about two car lengths back from the intersection she looked to her right and saw the defendant’s vehicle coming from Moore Street (a street which is parallel with Byron Street to the west) as it turned into Park Street.

1. She says that she next looked and saw the vehicle when it was at about the boundary of what she describes as the third and fourth house back from the intersection.  The third house was referred to as a high set house.

1. The plaintiff says that as she entered onto the intersection she kept an eye on the approaching vehicle and that it accelerated towards her.  When she saw that a collision was about to occur she stopped her vehicle and so it was stationary when the collision occurred.  According to her, the Landcruiser reached a speed of 65 to 75 kilometres per hour as it approached the intersection.

1. Her then partner, Mr Ashford, was a passenger in the car.  He subsequently took some measurements and these appear on Exhibit 5(a).…