Curry v Aughey - [2003] QSC 172

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Curry v Aughey & Anor [2003] QSC 172

PARTIES:

JEFFERY WAYNE CURRY
(plaintiff)
v
BRIAN LAWRENCE AUGHEY
(first defendant)
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD ACN 000 122 850

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC 7631 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

DELIVERED ON:

11 June 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2, 3, 4 June 2003

JUDGE:

de Jersey CJ

ORDER:

The further hearing of the proceeding be adjourned to a date to be fixed, pending the submission by counsel of a draft order to give effect to this judgment (and providing for any necessary statutory repayments), to be agreed, or failing agreement to be the subject of a further hearing, with costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NELIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – INTERSECTIONS AND JUNCTIONS – where plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of collision with defendant – where defendant overtook stationary vehicle on left and failed to give way – whether defendant liable in negligence

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – IN GENERAL – where plaintiff suffered significant brain injury and other injuries – where plaintiff requires ongoing care

Traffic Regulation 1962 (Qld), r 23, r 36

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 547, r 548

Campbell v Jones & Anor [2002] QCA 332; Appeal No 11496 of 2001, 3 September 2002, distinguished
Ferguson v Calnan & Anor [2002] QSC 342; SC 6549 of 1999, 24 October 2002, applied
Mott v Boggan & Anor [1998] QSC 265; SC 1209 of 1989, 12 November 1998, distinguished
Mousa v Marsh [2001] NSWCA 317, distinguished

Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563, distinguished

COUNSEL:

S Williams QC, with R King-Scott, for the plaintiff

M Grant-Taylor SC for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

O’Mara’s for the plaintiff

McInnes Wilson for the defendants

de JERSEY CJ: The plaintiff is presently an unmarried man born on 14 November 1955. He suffered injuries as a result of a collision, on 11 December 1998 at about 9:30am, between a Toyota Dyna truck he was driving in the course of his employment, and a bus driven by the first defendant Mr Aughey. The collision occurred at the intersection of Gold Coast Highway and Seaview Avenue, Mermaid Beach. Liability and quantum are both in issue.

As to liability, evidence was given by the plaintiff, Jason Cooper who observed part of the incident, Senior Constable Robinson as to versions of the events given later, Mr Aughey and another bus driver Mr Rohrlach.

The plaintiff suffered a closed-head injury involving severe traumatic brain damage, leading to 49 days' post-traumatic amnesia. I accept Dr Cameron's evidence (exhibit 16) that the plaintiff would probably have experienced retrograde amnesia of the events leading up to the collision of at least one minute's duration. It is improbable that the plaintiff's claimed recollection of the events leading up to the accident, given in oral evidence, is based on recollection rather than…

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 Curry v Aughey

Details

AGLC: Curry v Aughey [2003] QSC 172
Case: [2003] QSC 172
Decision Date: 11 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Curry v Aughey, the plaintiff, Curry, sought compensation from Aughey for injuries sustained in a road accident. The incident occurred when Aughey, driving his vehicle, overtook a stationary car on the left and collided with Curry's vehicle at an intersection. Curry claimed that Aughey was negligent in failing to give way and overtaking on the left, resulting in the collision. The court had to determine whether Aughey was liable for Curry's injuries under the principles of negligence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Aughey breached his duty of care to Curry by overtaking on the left and failing to give way at the intersection. The court examined the statutory obligations placed on drivers at intersections, specifically whether Aughey's actions constituted a breach of those obligations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Aughey's actions directly caused Curry's injuries, thereby establishing a causal link between the breach of duty and the resulting harm.

The court found that Aughey was indeed negligent in overtaking on the left and failing to give way, breaching his duty of care. The court held that these actions directly caused the collision and Curry's injuries. The court assessed the extent of Curry's injuries, including a significant brain injury and other physical harm, which required ongoing care. The court concluded that Aughey was liable for Curry's damages, and the matter was adjourned pending the submission of a draft order to give effect to the judgment. The costs were reserved pending further agreement or a further hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

The further hearing of the proceeding be adjourned to a date to be fixed, pending the submission by counsel of a draft order to give effect to this judgment (and providing for any necessary statutory repayments), to be agreed, or failing agreement to be the subject of a further hearing, with costs reserved.

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.

CITATION:	Curry v Aughey & Anor [2003] QSC 172
PARTIES:	JEFFERY WAYNE CURRY (plaintiff) v BRIAN LAWRENCE AUGHEY (first defendant) ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD ACN 000 122 850 (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC 7631 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Claim
DELIVERED ON:	11 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2, 3, 4 June 2003
JUDGE:	de Jersey CJ
ORDER:	The further hearing of the proceeding be adjourned to a date to be fixed, pending the submission by counsel of a draft order to give effect to this judgment (and providing for any necessary statutory repayments), to be agreed, or failing agreement to be the subject of a further hearing, with costs reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NELIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – INTERSECTIONS AND JUNCTIONS – where plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of collision with defendant – where defendant overtook stationary vehicle on left and failed to give way – whether defendant liable in negligence DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – IN GENERAL – where plaintiff suffered significant brain injury and other injuries – where plaintiff requires ongoing care Traffic Regulation 1962 (Qld), r 23, r 36 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 547, r 548 Campbell v Jones & Anor [2002] QCA 332; Appeal No 11496 of 2001, 3 September 2002, distinguished Ferguson v Calnan & Anor [2002] QSC 342; SC 6549 of 1999, 24 October 2002, applied Mott v Boggan & Anor [1998] QSC 265; SC 1209 of 1989, 12 November 1998, distinguished Mousa v Marsh [2001] NSWCA 317, distinguished Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563, distinguished
COUNSEL:	S Williams QC, with R King-Scott, for the plaintiff M Grant-Taylor SC for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	O’Mara’s for the plaintiff McInnes Wilson for the defendants