Dent v Calcagno
Case
•
[2016] NSWCA 289
•19 October 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dent v Calcagno [2016] NSWCA 289
[2016] NSWCA 289
19 October 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Dent v Calcagno* concerned a collision between a motor vehicle driven by the defendant and a cyclist, the plaintiff, on a country road. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in turning into a driveway without adequately checking for overtaking traffic. The primary judge had found the defendant negligent, specifically noting the late activation of the defendant's right-hand indicator.
The appellate court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding the defendant negligent, particularly in relation to the timing of the indicator activation and whether the defendant failed to take reasonable care by not looking in their rear-vision mirror before turning. The court also considered whether the defendant would have been negligent even if the indicator had been activated earlier than the primary judge found.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the primary judge's orders and entering judgment for the defendant. The court reasoned that the evidence did not support the primary judge's finding that the indicator was activated late. Instead, the court concluded that the indicator was activated in a timely manner, and the defendant had taken reasonable steps to check for traffic before turning. Consequently, the defendant was not found to be negligent. The plaintiff's cross-appeal was dismissed.
The appellate court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding the defendant negligent, particularly in relation to the timing of the indicator activation and whether the defendant failed to take reasonable care by not looking in their rear-vision mirror before turning. The court also considered whether the defendant would have been negligent even if the indicator had been activated earlier than the primary judge found.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the primary judge's orders and entering judgment for the defendant. The court reasoned that the evidence did not support the primary judge's finding that the indicator was activated late. Instead, the court concluded that the indicator was activated in a timely manner, and the defendant had taken reasonable steps to check for traffic before turning. Consequently, the defendant was not found to be negligent. The plaintiff's cross-appeal was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Negligence
-
Causation
-
Costs
-
Duty of Care
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Dent v Calcagno [2016] NSWCA 289
Most Recent Citation
Lee v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2023] NSWPIC 232
Cases Citing This Decision
5
Jay v Baker
[2018] NSWDC 270
Hyjer v Lopes
[2018] NSWDC 8
Bald v Hesford
[2024] WADC 87
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
3
Calcagno v Dent
[2015] NSWDC 308
Gordon v Truong
[2014] NSWCA 97