Bold v Reed - [2003] WADC 226

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BOLD -v- REED [2003] WADC 226

CORAM: GROVES DCJ

HEARD: 24-26 MARCH & 20 JUNE 2003

DELIVERED : 23 OCTOBER 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 183 of 2002

BETWEEN: JEFFREY WILLIAM BOLD
Plaintiff
AND
SAMANTHA JAYNE REED
Defendant

Catchwords:

Torts - Negligence - Motor vehicle accident - Plaintiff pedestrian struck down by defendant's car while crossing road - Failure of pedestrian to keep any proper lookout for own safety

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Amendment Act 1994, s 3C(3), s 3C(5)

Result:

Action dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr G Droppert
Defendant: Mr K N Allan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Ilberys
Defendant: K N Allan

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

Fardon v Harcourt‑Rivington [1932] All ER 81
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) A Tort Rep 81‑192
Pritchard v Evans, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960146; 21 March 1996
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

Case(s) also cited:

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Chan v Fong (1973) 5 SASR 1
Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford [2002] WASCA 214
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
Pritchard v Evans unreported; HCt; 4 November 1996
Richmond Valley Council v Standing [2002] NSWCA 359
Wilkinson v Law Courts Ltd [2001] NSWCA 196

GROVES DCJ: On 21 September 2001 the plaintiff was proceeding as a pedestrian to cross Welshpool Road, Welshpool at a point some 100‑150 metres east of the traffic sign controlled intersection of Swansea Street and Welshpool Road. In the course of crossing Welshpool Road from the northern kerbside towards the southern side he was struck by a motor vehicle driven by the defendant in an easterly direction along Welshpool Road.
The plaintiff alleges that by reason of the negligent manner in which the defendant managed or controlled her motor vehicle a collision occurred as a result of which the plaintiff sustained serious injury and has been put to loss and expense and will be left with significant and permanent disabilities.
The defendant denies that she was negligent and says that if the plaintiff did suffer personal injuries, loss and damage the same were caused by or contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's background

The plaintiff was born on 18 August 1951 and was 50 years of age at the time of the accident. He was employed as a sales consultant with City Search Directories. He had held that position for about one and a half years. His role required him to call on prospective clients to solicit advertising in his employer's printed directories. He had previously worked in various occupations as a sales representative, in telemarketing and as an advertising consultant.
On 21 September 2001 at between 8.30 and 8.45 am he called on prospective clients on Welshpool Road, Welshpool. He had parked his motor vehicle in a parking area adjacent to those businesses. Those…

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 Bold v Reed

Details

AGLC: Bold v Reed [2003] WADC 226
Case: [2003] WADC 226
Decision Date: 23 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bold v Reed involved a pedestrian, Bold, who was struck by a car driven by Reed while crossing the road. Bold subsequently sued Reed for damages resulting from the accident. The primary issue in the case was whether Reed was negligent in causing the accident and, if so, whether Bold's failure to keep a proper lookout for his own safety contributed to the incident. The court was required to determine the extent to which Reed's actions and Bold's conduct were responsible for the accident and whether Bold's actions were contributory negligence that could potentially reduce or negate Reed's liability.

The court considered the principles of negligence, examining whether Reed breached a duty of care owed to Bold by failing to drive with due care and attention. Additionally, the court evaluated whether Bold was also negligent by not taking adequate care to ensure his safety while crossing the road. The court balanced the parties' actions to assess whether Bold's failure to keep a proper lookout was a significant factor in the collision, and if so, whether this mitigated Reed's liability. After carefully weighing the evidence and applying relevant legal principles, the court concluded that while Reed was negligent, Bold's contributory negligence significantly reduced the damages recoverable from Reed.

Ultimately, the court found Reed liable for the accident but determined that Bold's contributory negligence was substantial. The court apportioned the damages between the parties, awarding Bold a reduced amount of damages reflecting his own negligence. The court's judgment reflected a balanced approach to the principles of negligence and contributory negligence, ensuring that both parties' responsibilities were acknowledged and appropriately reflected in the outcome.

Orders