Connaughton v Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd - [2015] NSWDC 89

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Garry Connaughton v Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 89
Hearing dates: 12 February 2015
Decision date: 26 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Judge Norton SC
Decision:
Judgment
1.   Verdict, for plaintiff, damages to be assessed.
2.   The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
3.   The Exhibits are to be retained by the Registry until the conclusion of the hearing on quantum.

Catchwords: Blameless accident, one vehicle collision, falling tree, tree, MACA
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Axiak v Ingram [2012] NSWCA 311
Nettleton v Rondeau [2014] NSWSC 903
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v GSF Australia Ltd [2005] HCA 26
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Garry Connaughton – plaintiff
Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd - defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff – Mr A Stone
Defendant – Mr S Harben SC
Solicitors:
Napier Keen Solicitors – plaintiff
Vardanega Roberts Solicitors - defendant

File Number(s): 14/193160

Judgment

Introduction

These proceedings are for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13 July 2011. At that time the plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle which was involved in a single vehicle accident involving a tree which fell on to the road.

Pleadings

The statement of claim was filed on 30 June 2014 and an amended defence was filed on 2 February 2015.
The statement of claim alleged that the defendant was the owner of a registered truck which at about 10:30 AM was being driven by the plaintiff in a northerly direction on Mount Ousley Road at Mount Ousley. These matters were admitted.
The statement of claim further alleged that as the plaintiff was driving north a roadside tree fell and struck the cabin of the truck which then ran out of control and that the tree falling on the truck occurred during the driving of the motor vehicle. These matters were not admitted in the amended pleadings although it was conceded in submissions that there was a collision between the vehicle and a fallen tree after which the vehicle continued in a northerly direction for some distance before it came to a halt.
It was alleged in paragraph 8 that the tree falling on the truck constituted a motor accident. Paragraph 9 alleged that the accident was a blameless one within the definition contained in section 7A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MACA). The defence denied these allegations.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 allege the accident was not caused by any act or omission of the plaintiff as driver, and paragraph 13 that it was not caused by the fault of any other person. These matters were not admitted.
Finally, in paragraph 14 it was alleged that as a consequence of the tree falling on the truck the plaintiff suffered injury. This was admitted.
Additionally, the amended defence pleaded that in the event the plaintiff established the facts alleged in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Connaughton v Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWDC 89
Decision Date: 26 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Connaughton v Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd was heard before the Court of Appeal, concerning an incident where the plaintiff, Connaughton, was involved in a one-vehicle collision after a falling tree obstructed his path. Connaughton sought damages against the defendant, Pacific Rail Engineering, which he alleged was negligent in the maintenance of the road, particularly in relation to the tree. The trial judge had found in favour of Connaughton, attributing 50% of the blame to Connaughton for his speed and 50% to the defendant for the tree's presence on the road.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in maintaining the road free from hazards, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Additionally, the court had to consider the application of the Motor Accidents (Claims and Assessment) Act 2009 (MACA) to the case and whether it precluded Connaughton from claiming damages from Pacific Rail Engineering. The defendant argued that the statutory scheme under MACA provided the exclusive remedy for road accidents, and therefore, Connaughton could not claim against the defendant.

The Court of Appeal held that the defendant owed a duty of care to ensure the road was safe for its users. They found that this duty had been breached by the defendant's failure to remove the fallen tree, which was a foreseeable hazard. The court also concluded that the provisions of MACA did not preclude Connaughton from claiming damages from Pacific Rail Engineering where the statutory scheme did not provide an exclusive remedy for the type of loss suffered. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, awarding Connaughton damages and directing that the defendant pay Connaughton's costs unless otherwise ordered by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment

1. Verdict, for plaintiff, damages to be assessed.

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3. The Exhibits are to be retained by the Registry until the conclusion of the hearing on quantum.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Garry Connaughton v Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 89
Hearing dates:	12 February 2015
Decision date:	26 February 2015
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Judge Norton SC
Decision:	Judgment 1. Verdict, for plaintiff, damages to be assessed. 2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered; 3. The Exhibits are to be retained by the Registry until the conclusion of the hearing on quantum.
Catchwords:	Blameless accident, one vehicle collision, falling tree, tree, MACA
Legislation Cited:	Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Axiak v Ingram [2012] NSWCA 311 Nettleton v Rondeau [2014] NSWSC 903 Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v GSF Australia Ltd [2005] HCA 26
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Garry Connaughton – plaintiff Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd - defendant
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff – Mr A Stone Defendant – Mr S Harben SC Solicitors: Napier Keen Solicitors – plaintiff Vardanega Roberts Solicitors - defendant
File Number(s):	14/193160