Davie v Manuel - [2022] WADC 91

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   DAVIE -v- MANUEL [2022] WADC 91
CORAM:   PETRUSA DCJ
HEARD:   9-10, 14-18, 21-22, 28-29 MARCH 2022
DELIVERED          :   26 OCTOBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1675 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CAROLINE DAVIE
Plaintiff
AND
DARRYL JUNE MANUEL
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Duty of care - Plaintiff driver involved in single vehicle accident - Whether defendant owner owed plaintiff duty of care - Causation - Factual causation - Whether non-working speedometer caused or materially contributed to accident - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)

Result:

The plaintiff's action is dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr G Droppert SC & Mr A G Cavenagh
Defendant	:	Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	CLP Legal Pty Ltd
Defendant	:	Mills Oakley

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

Barnes v New Zealand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] WADC 208
CGU Insurance Ltd v Coote (by his next friend Stephen Desmond Coote) [2018] WASCA 117
Nikolich v Webb [2020] WASCA 169

PETRUSA DCJ:

On 26 June 2015, Caroline Davie's working holiday in Australia came to an abrupt end when the car she was driving slid from a gravel road rolling over onto its roof. Ms Davie's two passengers walked away uninjured from the accident whilst she suffered a severe traumatic injury that has left her severely disabled. The car was owned by the defendant, Ms Manuel, who was operating a backpackers' hostel in the Arthur River area. Ms Davie had been staying at Ms Manuel's hostel with a view to taking up rural employment opportunities communicated to her by Ms Manuel. Ms Manuel made a car available to residents at the hostel so they could take up these employment opportunities.
Ms Davie claims that the defendant was under a duty at common law, or contractual duty to ensure that the motor vehicle she provided was roadworthy, free of defects that affected safety, and was reasonably safe for use on roads which were known to the defendant to be travelled, in order to attend work arranged by her.
Ms Davie claims that in breach of the duty the car provided did not have a working speedometer which caused or materially contributed to the accident that resulted in her traumatic injuries.
The defendant Ms Manuel denies that there was any contractual relationship between her and the plaintiff in respect of the motor vehicle but in any event denies that:
(a)the plaintiff has established the cause of the accident; and/or
(b)the accident was caused by any breach of duty by the defendant.
The parties have agreed quantum and it is only necessary for me to determine issues relating to liability.

The pleadings

The plaintiff pleads that the defendant's liability arises because:
1.At all material times the defendant was under a duty of care in respect of the control, management and maintenance of the vehicle so as not to expose the plaintiff, as a user of the vehicle, to a foreseeable risk of harm.
2.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.

Continue reading Davie v Manuel

Details

AGLC: Davie v Manuel [2022] WADC 91
Case: [2022] WADC 91
Decision Date: 26 OCTOBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Davie v Manuel, the plaintiff, a driver involved in a single vehicle accident, sought to hold the defendant, the owner of the vehicle, liable for negligence. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to ensure the vehicle was roadworthy, specifically by not maintaining the speedometer, which led to the accident. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care in respect of the vehicle's roadworthiness, and if so, whether the failure to maintain the speedometer caused or materially contributed to the accident.

The court had to determine if the defendant had a duty to ensure that the vehicle was roadworthy and if the non-functioning speedometer was a breach of that duty. The court also had to consider whether the non-working speedometer caused or materially contributed to the accident, a question that depended on the specific circumstances of the case. The plaintiff argued that the speedometer was a critical safety device, and its failure materially contributed to the accident. The defendant countered that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's own negligence, not the vehicle's condition.

The court found that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care in relation to the vehicle's roadworthiness as the plaintiff was a volunteer driver and not a passenger. The court further found that even if a duty of care existed, the non-working speedometer did not cause or materially contribute to the accident. The plaintiff's own negligence was the primary cause. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, holding that the defendant was not liable for the accident.

Orders