Legal Research
Cases
Direen v Coad

Direen v Coad

Case [2005] TASSC 122 7 December 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2005] TASSC 122
CITATION:            Direen v Coad [2005] TASSC 122
PARTIES:  DIREEN, Timothy Allen
  v
COAD, Simon James

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  FCA 25/2005
DELIVERED ON:  7 December 2005
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  22 August 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford, Blow and Tennent JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Torts – Negligence – Road accident cases – Actions for negligence – Apportionment of damages – Pedestrian accidents – Pedestrian stepped into path of vehicle.
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492, applied.
Aust Dig Torts [109]

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
           Appellant:  B R McTaggart
           Respondent:  K E Read
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Hilliard and Associates
           Respondent:  Murdoch Clarke
Judgment Number:  [2005] TASSC 122
Number of paragraphs:  68
Serial No 122/2005
File No FCA 25/2005

TIMOTHY ALLEN DIREEN v SIMON JAMES COAD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
  CRAWFORD J
  BLOW J
  TENNENT J
  7 December 2005
Orders of the Court
1Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Serial No 122/2005
File No FCA 25/2005

TIMOTHY ALLAN DIREEN v SIMON JAMES COAD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
  CRAWFORD J
  7 December 2005
1                   I agree for the reasons given by Tennent J that the appeal and the cross-appeal should be dismissed.

File No FCA 25/2005

TIMOTHY ALLAN DIREEN v SIMON JAMES COAD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
BLOW J
7 December 2005
2 I have read the judgment of Tennent J in draft form. I agree with her Honour that the appeal and cross-appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons stated by her. I would like to add a little in relation to an arithmetical approach to ground 7, which relates to the award of $50,000 for the impairment of the plaintiff's future earning capacity.

3 The appellant was 23 years old at the time of the collision and 26 years old when his damages were assessed. At the time of the collision he was unemployed by choice. He left school when he was 15 years old. Thereafter he was unemployed or underemployed by choice for much of the time. He had worked with a panelbeater as a trainee, and then with a manufacturer of screen doors and blinds. He had undertaken a six month landcare and environment course that involved laying garden beds, planting trees, chemical spraying, bricklaying and the like. He had worked part-time as a night filler at a supermarket. He had undertaken fruit picking, gardening, cleaning work, and other odd jobs. The learned trial judge found that he was fit to return to his former occupations by about the end of March 2004. However his future earning capacity was impaired in two respects. Because of a possibility of early degenerative changes in his knees and hips occurring in his 50s, rather than in his 70s, he was no longer ideally suited for heavy physical work. Because of his head injury, he had a continuing mild impairment of certain intellectual processes. However he retained strengths in the areas of reading, general knowledge, and vocabulary, and…

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 Direen v Coad

Details

AGLC: Direen v Coad [2005] TASSC 122
Case: [2005] TASSC 122
Decision Date: 7 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Direen v Coad involved the plaintiff, Direen, suing the defendant, Coad, for damages arising from a road accident. The incident occurred when the plaintiff, while crossing a street, stepped into the path of the defendant's vehicle, resulting in injuries. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was negligent in failing to avoid the collision, while the defendant claimed that the plaintiff's actions contributed to the accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, the extent to which the plaintiff's contributory negligence should affect the apportionment of damages. The court had to determine if the defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver and whether the plaintiff's decision to step into the path of the vehicle constituted contributory negligence. Furthermore, the court needed to decide how to apportion the damages between the parties, considering both the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory fault.

The court found that the defendant was indeed negligent for failing to adequately observe the road and the surrounding traffic conditions, which were critical factors in the accident. The plaintiff was also found to have contributed to the incident by stepping into the path of the vehicle without ensuring it was safe to do so. The court held that both parties shared responsibility for the accident and damages were apportioned accordingly. The plaintiff's damages were reduced by 25% to reflect the extent of their contributory negligence.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $150,000, reflecting the apportionment of fault and the nature of the plaintiff's injuries. This decision underscored the importance of both drivers adhering to the highest standards of care on the road, and the necessity of courts to fairly apportion damages in cases of shared fault.

Orders