Legal Research
Cases
Byrnes v Barry

Byrnes v Barry

Case [2004] ACTCA 25 10 December 2004

Type to search within this case.

JAMES BOYD NORMAN v SANDRA DARLENE SPIERS [2004] ACTCA 25
(10 December 2004)

NEGLIGENCE – police car with siren and lights activated travelling at speed above limit – significance of regulation exempting driver from compliance with traffic rules – whether driver nonetheless negligent in travelling at admitted speed in prevailing circumstances – contributory negligence – failing to keep proper look out – changing lanes when unsafe and without signal.
EVIDENCE – whether reliance on stopping distances suggested in text book permissible.

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 42
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulations 2000, reg 69

Spiers v Norman [2004] ACTSC 55
Suvaal v Cessnock City Council (2003) 200 ALR 1
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
South Ambulance Ambulance Transport Inc v Wahlheim (1948) 77 CLR 215
Board of Fire Commissioners (NSW) v Ardouin (1961) 109 CLR 105
Morgan v Pearson (1979) 22 SASR 5
Patterson v McGinlay (1991) 55 SASR 258
Nelligan v Mickan (1998) 28 MVR 114
Johnstone v Woolmer (1977) 16 ACTR 6
Schulz v Morrison (1984) 1 MVR 34
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 2 All ER 368
Blight v Warman & McAllan [1964] SASR 163
Winter v Cth (1992) 112 ACTR 10

Leslie & Britts Motor Vehicle Law in NSW (4^th ed)

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 26-2004
No. SC 624 of 2002

Judges: Crispin P, Connolly and Selway JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 10 December 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 26-2004
  )          No. SC 624 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JAMES BOYD NORMAN
Appellant

AND:SANDRA DARLENE SPIERS
Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Crispin P, Connolly and Selway JJ
Date:  10 December 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

the appeal is allowed for the purpose of reducing the amount of the judgment from $232,452.30 to $116,226.15;

the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 26-2004
  )          No. SC 624 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JAMES BOYD NORMAN
Appellant

AND:SANDRA DARLENE SPIERS
Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Connolly and Selway JJ
Date:  10 December 2004
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

The appellant appeals from the decision of the primary Judge given on 28 June 2004: Spiers v Norman [2004] ACTSC 55. The primary Judge found that the appellant was wholly liable for a motor vehicle collision on 24 December 2001 between a police vehicle driven by the appellant and a private vehicle driven by the respondent. The primary Judge ordered that judgment be entered for the respondent in the sum of $232,452.30. For the reasons given below we would…

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 Byrnes v Barry

Details

AGLC: Byrnes v Barry [2004] ACTCA 25
Case: [2004] ACTCA 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal concerning a motor vehicle collision between a police vehicle driven by the appellant, James Boyd Norman, and a private vehicle driven by the respondent, Sandra Darlene Spiers. The collision occurred during extensive bushfires in Canberra. The primary judge had found the appellant wholly liable and ordered judgment for the respondent in the sum of $232,452.30. The appellant appealed this decision.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the appellant, a police driver operating under an exemption from ordinary road rules, was nonetheless negligent in his driving at the speed and in the circumstances prevailing at the time of the collision. The court also considered whether the primary judge erred in her assessment of the appellant's speed, particularly in her reliance on textbook stopping distances, and whether the respondent was contributorily negligent.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's conclusion regarding the appellant's speed, based on textbook stopping distances without expert evidence, could not be sustained. The court re-assessed the evidence and determined that while the appellant was exempt from statutory road rules under Regulation 69 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulations 2000, this exemption did not absolve him from a duty of care. Considering the prevailing circumstances, including heavy traffic, unusual conditions due to bushfires, and the presence of a crossover in the median strip, the court found that the appellant's speed of 100-110 kilometres per hour was excessive and constituted a breach of his duty of care. The court also found that the respondent was contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and for changing lanes unsafely without signalling.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reducing the judgment amount by 50% to $116,226.15, reflecting an equal apportionment of blame between the parties. The court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders