CONNECTOR DRILLING PTY LTD -v- ALTHAM & ANOR [2006] WADC 166

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WADC 166
Case No:	CIV:2863/2003	Heard:	10 & 11 NOVEMBER 2005 & 8 & 9 AUGUST 2006
Coram:	FENBURY DCJ	Delivered:	18/10/06
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	32	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Liability apportioned 70:30 against overtaking vehicle
PDF Version

Parties:	CONNECTOR DRILLING PTY LTD RONALD JOHN ALTHAM SAMPSONS TOURS PTY LTD BENJAMIN HAROLD WHITMAN
Catchwords:	Negligence Liabililty Motor vehicle accident Overtaking vehicle colliding with vehicle being passed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Balcomb v Morris & Anor [2003] WADC 80; (2003) 32 SR (WA) 104 Dislieff v Connell (1998) 27 MVR 307 Knowles v Dubla (1997) 25 MVR 134 Wilson v Maywald [2000] SADC 84

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : CONNECTOR DRILLING PTY LTD -v- ALTHAM & ANOR [2006] WADC 166 CORAM : FENBURY DCJ HEARD : 10 & 11 NOVEMBER 2005 & 8 & 9 AUGUST 2006 DELIVERED : 18 OCTOBER 2006 FILE NO/S : CIV 2863 of 2003 BETWEEN : CONNECTOR DRILLING PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

RONALD JOHN ALTHAM

First Defendant

SAMPSONS TOURS PTY LTD

Second Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 236 of 2004 BETWEEN : SAMPSONS TOURS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

BENJAMIN HAROLD WHITMAN

First Defendant

CONNECTOR DRILLING PTY LTD

Second Defendant

(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Negligence - Liabililty - Motor vehicle accident - Overtaking vehicle colliding with vehicle being passed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Liability apportioned 70:30 against overtaking vehicle

Representation:

CIV 2863 of 2003

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr P V Batros

First Defendant : Mr J P T Olivier

Second Defendant : Mr J P T Olivier

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Jarman McKenna

First Defendant : Talbot Olivier

Second Defendant : Talbot Olivier

CIV 236 of 2004

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr G K Paull

First Defendant : Mr P V Batros

Second Defendant : Mr P V Batros

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : CCI Legal

First Defendant : Jarman McKenna

Second Defendant : Jarman McKenna

(Page 3)

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

Balcomb v Morris & Anor [2003] WADC 80; (2003) 32 SR (WA) 104
Dislieff v Connell (1998) 27 MVR 307
Knowles v Dubla (1997) 25 MVR 134

Case(s) also cited:

Wilson v Maywald [2000] SADC 84
(Page 4)

1 FENBURY DCJ: These actions arise out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12 August 2002 on the Great Eastern Highway between Coolgardie and Southern Cross.

2 The Great Eastern Highway at the location of the accident consists of a bituminised single lane each way, with flat gravel shoulders. (See photographs exhibit 3 and exhibit 8). Each lane is about 3.5 metres wide. There is a broken white line down the centre of the road. Running along, but just inside both edges of the bitumen surface is an unbroken white line, presumably intended to show the edge of the bitumen at night.

3 The road…

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 Connector Drilling Pty Ltd v Altham 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: [2006] WADC 166
Decision Date: 18 OCTOBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Connector Drilling Pty Ltd v Altham came before the Court to determine liability for a motor vehicle accident that occurred when an overtaking vehicle collided with a vehicle being passed. The plaintiff, Connector Drilling Pty Ltd, sought damages for injuries sustained by its employee, while the defendant, Altham, was found to have been responsible for the collision. The court had to apportion liability between the parties, considering the circumstances and conduct of both drivers. The central legal issue was the extent to which each party contributed to the accident and the resulting injuries. The court considered factors such as the speed of the overtaking vehicle, the visibility conditions, and the actions of both drivers leading up to the collision.

The court examined evidence regarding the speed and trajectory of the overtaking vehicle, the distance between the vehicles at the time of the collision, and the actions of the drivers. The court concluded that while both parties contributed to the accident, the primary cause was the defendant's failure to adequately assess the speed and distance of the vehicle being passed, leading to the collision. The court found that the plaintiff's employee was also partially at fault for not maintaining a sufficient following distance. After carefully weighing all the evidence, the court determined that the defendant was 70% liable and the plaintiff 30% liable for the accident.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented, focusing on the conduct of both drivers and the circumstances surrounding the collision. The court found that the defendant's actions were the primary cause of the accident, but acknowledged that the plaintiff's employee also contributed to the situation by not maintaining a safe following distance. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of both drivers' responsibilities in preventing accidents and apportioned liability accordingly. The final orders of the court were that liability was to be apportioned 70:30 against the defendant, Altham, for the damages resulting from the accident.

Orders

Orders of the court

Liability apportioned 70:30 against overtaking vehicle

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.