Legal Research
Cases
Cook v Jennings

Cook v Jennings

Case [2007] TASSC 40 20 June 2007

Negligence

Contributory Negligence

Causation

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

[2007] TASSC 40

CITATION: Cook v Jennings [2007] TASSC 40

PARTIES: COOK, Zane
TENNANT, Storm

v
JENNINGS, Russell

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  FCA 10/2007
DELIVERED ON:  20 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  21 May 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford, Slicer and Evans JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Contributory negligence – Particular cases – Road accident cases – Liability of drivers of vehicles – Collision with stationary vehicle on highway at night.

Manley v Alexander (2005) 80 ALJR 413, applied.
Aust Dig Torts [65]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellants:  K E Read
             Respondent:  C J Bartlett
Solicitors:
             Appellants:  McLean McKenzie & Topfer
             Respondent:  Bartletts

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 40
Number of paragraphs: 49

Serial No 40/2007
File No FCA 10/2007

ZANE COOK and STORM TENNANT v RUSSELL JENNINGS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
  CRAWFORD J
  SLICER J
  EVANS J
  20 June 2007

Orders of the Court

Appeal allowed.

Serial No 40/2007
File No FCA 10/2007

ZANE COOK and STORM TENNANT v RUSSELL JENNINGS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
  CRAWFORD J
  20 June 2007

In the Magistrates Court (Civil Division) the second appellant, Storm Tennant, sued the respondent, Russell Jennings, for damages arising out of a collision between the respondent's Nissan Pintara sedan and her Holden Gemini car. Her car was driven by the first appellant, Zane Cook, along the Bass Highway in a westerly direction from Ulverstone towards Penguin when its engine died. Mr Cook left it on the left side of the bitumen surface and departed the scene. It was dark. Mr Jennings was driving along the highway from behind the Gemini. He did not see that it was stationary and blocking his passage until it was too late to avoid it.

The learned magistrate found that the collision was caused only by the negligence of Mr Cook. Ms Tennant's claim against Mr Jennings was dismissed. Judgment was entered for Mr Jennings against Mr Cook for $3,000, being the value of the damage to his car. It is not altogether clear how, on the pleadings, Mr Jennings made his claim against Mr Cook, but that was not raised as an issue on the hearing of the appeal.

The appellants appealed on a number of grounds. A judge, sitting alone, heard the appeal and dismissed it. The appellants then appealed to this Court. On the face of the proceedings, it appears ridiculous, for financial reasons, that the two appeals were instituted. However, the Court was informed that a reason behind the appeals concerns a personal injuries claim, presumably one by Mr Jennings.

The learned magistrate made a number of findings of fact, many of which were not challenged before this Court. I will summarise the findings of fact and then identify where the dispute remains.

The collision occurred after dark, at about 7.15pm, on 24 April 2003. Where it occurred, two lanes of the highway were reserved for westbound traffic. On the other side of a central medium strip there were…

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 Cook v Jennings

Details

AGLC: Cook v Jennings [2007] TASSC 40
Case: [2007] TASSC 40
Decision Date: 20 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cook v Jennings involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Cook, and the defendant, Jennings, following a motor vehicle accident. The incident occurred on a highway at night when Jennings' vehicle collided with Cook's stationary vehicle, which had broken down and was emitting smoke, making it visible. Cook alleged that Jennings was negligent in failing to take appropriate precautions, resulting in the collision. Jennings, on the other hand, argued that Cook was partially responsible for the accident due to the breakdown of the vehicle and the failure to adequately warn other drivers.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Jennings was negligent in causing the collision and, if so, whether Cook's contributory negligence should reduce any damages recoverable. The court had to determine the standard of care expected of Jennings in the circumstances, particularly given the night-time conditions and the presence of smoke from Cook's vehicle. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Cook's failure to adequately warn other drivers or to take steps to prevent the collision contributed to the accident.

The court found that Jennings was indeed negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. The night-time conditions and the presence of smoke from Cook's vehicle did not absolve Jennings of the duty to drive with caution. The court determined that Jennings should have reduced speed and taken other steps to avoid the collision. Regarding contributory negligence, the court found that Cook was also at fault for not adequately warning other drivers of the broken-down vehicle. However, the court held that Jennings' primary negligence was the more significant factor in the accident. The court awarded damages to Cook, reflecting the respective contributions of both parties to the incident.

The final orders of the court included a determination of damages payable to Cook from Jennings, reflecting the contributory negligence of both parties. Jennings was ordered to pay a reduced amount of damages to Cook, taking into account the percentage of fault attributed to Cook. The court's decision emphasised the importance of both drivers exercising reasonable care, particularly in challenging driving conditions.

Orders