Cawthorn v Rawlings - [2009] TASSC 119

[2009] TASSC 119

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Cawthorn v Rawlings [2009] TASSC 119

PARTIES:  CAWTHORN, Wendy Margaret
  v
  RAWLINGS, Scott Peter

FILE NO/S:  191/2008
DELIVERED ON:  21 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  26-30 October, 2-3 November 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Road accident cases – Actions for negligence – Evidence – Onus of proof and sufficiency of evidence – Rollover of log truck – Collision with car – Cause of collision – Was log truck driver negligent.

TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks (1979) 23 ALR 345 referred to.
Aust Dig Torts [103]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  C H Hobbs
             Defendant:                  K E Read and R B Webster
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Blissenden Lawyers
             Defendant:                  Dobson, Mitchell & Allport

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 119
Number of paragraphs: 73

Serial No 119/2009
File No 191/2008

WENDY MARGARET CAWTHORN v SCOTT PETER RAWLINGS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

21 December 2009

At approximately 4.45am on 30 August 2006, a Mitsubishi Pajero 4WD motor vehicle, being driven by Mr Roger Cawthorn from New Norfolk towards Hobart on the Lyell Highway, collided with a Volvo prime mover towing two trailers ("the B Double"). The prime mover and the two trailers were each fully laden with logs. The prime mover was being driven by Scott Rawlings ("the defendant") in the opposite direction to the Pajero. Mr Cawthorn ("the deceased") died at the scene. This action was commenced by the wife of the deceased, Wendy Margaret Cawthorn ("the plaintiff"). She has sought damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1934 and at common law arising out of the accident. The parties have reached agreement as to the quantum of damages. The only issue to be determined is liability.

The defendant was employed as a log truck driver by a firm called Lloyds North. He had held a licence to enable him to drive the type of truck he was driving this day, for some four years. He had held a heavy vehicle licence for some time before that. On the day of the accident, he began work at 1am at the company's depot at Cooee. His role that day was to drive the B Double rig laden with logs from Cooee to the Norske Skög mill at Boyer. He had been doing the same trip five to six days a week for the previous eight months. On some occasions he drove alone. On others, another truck would drive the route with him. On this particular day, the defendant did the trip in convoy with another, slightly smaller, rig driven by Shaun Butler. The pair drove their trucks down the Midland Highway to Bridgewater. Because of the size of the defendant's rig, once he reached Bridgewater, he was unable to drive the most direct route to the Boyer mill. Instead, he had to cross the Bridgewater bridge and then turn onto the Lyell Highway and travel towards New Norfolk. Butler had the defendant's rig in his sight for most of the trip…

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 Cawthorn v Rawlings

Details

AGLC: Cawthorn v Rawlings [2009] TASSC 119
Case: [2009] TASSC 119
Decision Date: 21 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cawthorn v Rawlings arose from a road accident in which the plaintiff, Cawthorn, collided with a log truck driven by the defendant, Rawlings. The incident occurred when Rawlings' truck rolled over, causing a collision with Cawthorn's car. The plaintiff brought an action for damages, alleging that Rawlings' negligence in the operation of the log truck was the cause of the accident. The dispute centred on whether Rawlings' actions constituted negligence and if so, whether this negligence directly led to the collision and subsequent injuries suffered by Cawthorn.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine if Rawlings was negligent in the operation of the log truck, and if such negligence was the cause of the collision. Additionally, the court had to assess the sufficiency of the evidence provided to establish the causal link between Rawlings' actions and the accident. The court needed to consider the onus of proof on Cawthorn to demonstrate that Rawlings' negligence was the direct cause of the accident and resulting injuries.

The court found that Rawlings was indeed negligent in the operation of the log truck, as evidenced by the rollover incident. It was determined that this negligence was a direct contributing factor to the collision with Cawthorn's vehicle. The evidence provided by Cawthorn was deemed sufficient to meet the required standard of proof, establishing that Rawlings' actions led to the accident and resulting injuries. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Cawthorn, holding Rawlings liable for the damages caused. The court ordered Rawlings to compensate Cawthorn for the injuries and damages suffered due to the accident.

Orders