Bratton v Sharp - [2004] NSWSC 505

CITATION: BRATTON v SHARP [2004] NSWSC 505

HEARING DATE(S): 2-5 June 2003;
22-25 September 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 June 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

DECISION: Stood over for short minutes of order

PARTIES :
Wayne Gordon Bratton
Raymond Neville Sharp
S Crowther & Sons Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20693/01

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: A Hartcher (Solicitor)
1st Def: J Poulos QC; M Morris; K Andronos
2nd Def: J McIntyre SC

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Watkins Tapsell
1st Def: Sparke Helmore
2nd Def: Dexter Healey

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HULME J

Friday 11 June 2004

20693/01

WAYNE GORDON BRATTON v RAYMOND NEVILLE SHARP AND ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HULME J: At about dawn on 11 June 1999 the Plaintiff in these proceedings was injured when he was struck by a car in Gannons Road, Caringbah. At the time the Plaintiff was assisting Mr Herrmann, the driver of a bus which was being reversed slowly into Gannons Road from a bus depot. The bus and depot were owned by the Second Defendant by whom the Plaintiff was employed as a bus driver. He had been so employed since February 1999. The driver of the car is the First Defendant.

2 Gannons Road runs approximately north-south. The bus depot is situate on the eastern of the road. By walking out onto the road and raising his hand in the usual halt signal, the Plaintiff had induced the drivers of two south bound cars to stop and then called out to the bus driver, the rear of whose vehicle was then at about the fence alignment to “come on”. By this time the Plaintiff was in, approximately, the middle of the road.

3 As the bus traversed the two south bound lanes, the Plaintiff walked, it would seem backwards, across one of the north bound lanes and into the second where he was struck. His estimate is that at that time he was approximately 2 metres from the western kerb of Gannons Road and the same distance from the bus which, with a view to proceeding south in Gannons Road had, in the course of its reversing, been angling somewhat to the north. He seems to have previously told a psychologist whose report was tendered by the First Defendant that he was one metre from the kerb. Evidence of Mr Herrmann and an eyewitness, Ms Highfield, further confirms that the Plaintiff was in the kerbside lane.

4 Although not all of the Plaintiff’s evidence was to this effect, the tenor of his evidence seemed to me to be that the bus stopped with its rear wheels on the centre line and its body occupying the southbound lanes and one of the northbound lanes.

5 Mr Herrmann said that he could not be sure but thought he stopped the bus when it was partly blocking the northbound carriageway. He said that he stopped when he did because he saw a car proceeding north and it did not…

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 Bratton v Sharp

Details

AGLC: Bratton v Sharp [2004] NSWSC 505
Case: [2004] NSWSC 505
Decision Date: 11 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bratton v Sharp involved a personal injury claim brought by the plaintiff, Wayne Gordon Bratton, against the driver of the car that struck him, Raymond Neville Sharp, and his employer, S Crowther & Sons Pty Limited. The incident occurred when Bratton was assisting a bus driver to reverse out of a depot onto Gannons Road. Bratton was struck by Sharp's car while standing on the road, resulting in injuries. The primary issues before the court were whether Sharp was negligent in failing to see Bratton in time to avoid the collision and whether the second defendant was negligent in allowing its employees to venture onto the roadway. Hulme J found that Sharp was negligent for not seeing Bratton in time to avoid the collision despite adequate lighting and visibility conditions. The court also held that the second defendant was negligent in allowing its employees to venture onto the roadway without adequate safety measures, such as requiring the use of high-visibility vests. The court apportioned liability, assigning one-third of the responsibility to Bratton for his contributory negligence, and dividing the remaining liability equally between Sharp and the second defendant. The court ordered the publication of its reasons and invited the parties to prepare short minutes of order reflecting the court's conclusions.

Orders