Bartholomaeus v Newcombe

Case [2008] WASCA 136


BARTHOLOMAEUS -v- NEWCOMBE [2008] WASCA 136



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2008] WASCA 136
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACV:106/200716 JUNE 2008
Coram:PULLIN JA
BUSS JA
MURRAY AJA
3/07/08
9Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:JAMES ANTHONY BARTHOLOMAEUS
PAUL REGINALD NEWCOMBE

Catchwords:

Tort
Negligence
Collision between bus and pedestrian
Both parties found to be negligent
Apportionment of liability for contributory negligence
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Case References:

Bartholomaeus v Newcombe [2007] WADC 94
Gorman v Scofield [2008] WASCA 78
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529
Stocks v Baldwin (1996) 24 MVR 416


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BARTHOLOMAEUS -v- NEWCOMBE [2008] WASCA 136 CORAM : PULLIN JA
    BUSS JA
    MURRAY AJA
HEARD : 16 JUNE 2008 DELIVERED : 3 JULY 2008 FILE NO/S : CACV 106 of 2007 BETWEEN : JAMES ANTHONY BARTHOLOMAEUS
    Appellant

    AND

    PAUL REGINALD NEWCOMBE
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : COMMISSIONER O'NEAL

Citation : BARTHOLOMAEUS -v- NEWCOMBE [2007] WADC 94

File No : CIV 536 of 2006



(Page 2)



Catchwords:

Tort - Negligence - Collision between bus and pedestrian - Both parties found to be negligent - Apportionment of liability for contributory negligence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr D R Clyne
    Respondent : Mr D W Williams

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Donna Percy & Co
    Respondent : Williams Handcock



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

Bartholomaeus v Newcombe [2007] WADC 94
Gorman v Scofield [2008] WASCA 78
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529
Stocks v Baldwin (1996) 24 MVR 416


(Page 3)

1 PULLIN JA: I agree with Murray AJA.

2 BUSS JA: I agree with Murray AJA.

3 MURRAY AJA: The appellant was injured on 29 September 2005, in Hay Street, Perth, near the intersection of that street and Colin Street, when he was struck by a Central Area Transit (CAT) bus driven by the respondent. It was an impact to which, by his conduct, the appellant contributed. As a result, the appellant fell to the ground. The major injuries he suffered arose out of the fact that, while he was on the ground, the left rear wheel of the bus ran over his left leg.

4 The appellant sued for damages for negligence in the District Court. By his statement of claim he alleged that the defendant was negligent by:


    1. Failing to keep any or any proper lookout or have any sufficient regard for pedestrians on the said road.

    2. Failing to have or to keep any or any proper control of the said vehicle.

    3. Failing to stop, swerve or…

Continue reading Bartholomaeus v Newcombe

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bartholomaeus v Newcombe [2008] WASCA 136
Case
[2008] WASCA 136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bartholomaeus v Newcombe, the plaintiff, Bartholomaeus, sought damages for injuries sustained in a collision between a bus and himself while he was a pedestrian. The defendant, Newcombe, the bus driver, argued that the plaintiff was partially at fault for the accident. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine the apportionment of liability between the parties for contributory negligence.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff was negligent in his conduct and to what extent that negligence contributed to the accident. The court also needed to determine if the defendant was negligent in his capacity as the driver of the bus and how that negligence contributed to the accident. Additionally, the court needed to establish whether the defendant's negligence was the predominant cause of the accident, and if so, to what extent the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the damages awarded.

The court found that both parties were negligent, with the plaintiff failing to exercise reasonable care by crossing the road in an unsafe manner, and the defendant failing to exercise reasonable care by not adequately checking for pedestrians before moving the bus. The court held that the defendant's negligence was the predominant cause of the accident, but the plaintiff's contributory negligence could not be ignored. The court determined the apportionment of liability by considering the degree of negligence of each party, and the extent to which each party's negligence contributed to the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff was 25% contributory negligent, and the defendant was 75% liable for the damages. The appeal was dismissed, and the apportionment of liability was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.