BOLD -v- REED [2005] WASCA 165

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASCA 165
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	FUL:161/2003	Heard:	2 JUNE 2005
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH JA MCLURE JA LE MIERE AJA	Delivered:	29/08/05
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JEFFREY WILLIAM BOLD SAMANTHA JAYNE REED
Catchwords:	Appeal Negligence Duty of care owed to road users
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Pledge v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors (2004) 205 ALR 56 Stocks & McDonald Hamilton Co Pty Ltd v Baldwin (1996) 24 MVR 416 Trompp v Liddle (1941) 41 SR(NSW) 108 Bird v McShea (1999) 29 MVR 103 Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington [1932] All ER 81 Kappos v Berghoffer (1990) 11 MVR 480 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 Paua Nominees Pty Ltd v Miller [2005] HCA Trans 232 Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10 Pritchard v Evans (1996) 23 MVR 149 Rowes Bus Service Pty Ltd v Cowan (1999) 29 MVR 430 Teubner v Humble (1963) 108 CLR 491 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BOLD -v- REED [2005] WASCA 165 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH JA

MCLURE JA

LE MIERE AJA

HEARD : 2 JUNE 2005 DELIVERED : 29 AUGUST 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 161 of 2003 BETWEEN : JEFFREY WILLIAM BOLD

Appellant

AND

SAMANTHA JAYNE REED

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : GROVES DCJ

Citation : [2003] WADC 226

File No : CIV 2515 of 2001

Catchwords:

Appeal - Negligence - Duty of care owed to road users

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr G Droppert

Respondent : Mr K N Allan

Solicitors:

Appellant : Ilberys Lawyers

Respondent : K N Allan

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

Pledge v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors (2004) 205 ALR 56
Stocks & McDonald Hamilton Co Pty Ltd v Baldwin (1996) 24 MVR 416
Trompp v Liddle (1941) 41 SR(NSW) 108

Case(s) also cited:

Bird v McShea (1999) 29 MVR 103
Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington [1932] All ER 81
Kappos v Berghoffer (1990) 11 MVR 480
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Paua Nominees Pty Ltd v Miller [2005] HCA Trans 232
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
Pritchard v Evans (1996) 23 MVR 149
Rowes Bus Service Pty Ltd v Cowan (1999) 29 MVR 430
Teubner v Humble (1963) 108 CLR 491
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH JA: For the reasons given by Le Miere AJA, I agree there was no breach by the respondent of her duty of care towards the appellant. I too would dismiss the appeal.

2 MCLURE JA: I agree with Le Miere AJA.

3 LE MIERE AJA:…

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 [2005] WASCA 165
Case: [2005] WASCA 165
Decision Date: 29 AUGUST 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bold v Reed, the plaintiff, Bold, appealed a decision against his claim for damages for personal injury sustained in a road accident. The defendant, Reed, was the driver of a vehicle that collided with Bold's motorcycle. The court was required to determine whether Reed owed a duty of care to Bold and whether that duty was breached. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue revolved around the scope and extent of the duty of care that a driver owes to other road users. Bold argued that Reed owed a duty of care that was breached, resulting in his injuries. Reed contended that there was no breach of duty or that any breach was not the cause of Bold's injuries. The court had to examine the established principles of negligence law and the specific circumstances of the accident to determine the validity of Bold's claim.

The court considered the principles of duty of care established in previous cases, such as those involving drivers and motorcyclists. The court found that Reed did indeed owe a duty of care to Bold. However, the court also found that Reed had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid the accident and that Bold's injuries were not caused by any breach of that duty. The court emphasised the need for all road users to exercise reasonable care and highlighted the importance of shared responsibility on the road. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court 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.