Dungan v Chan
Case
•
[2013] NSWCA 182
•02 July 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dungan v Chan [2013] NSWCA 182
[2013] NSWCA 182
02 July 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a road accident in which the appellant, a pedestrian, was struck by a vehicle driven by the respondent. The collision occurred at an intersection where the traffic lights were green for vehicles. The pedestrian light, however, was flashing red when the appellant commenced to cross the road. The appellant alleged the respondent was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout. The matter was heard by Ward, Emmett and Gleeson JJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent driver had breached their duty of care to the appellant pedestrian. This involved determining whether the respondent had failed to keep a proper lookout, given the circumstances of the collision, including the state of the traffic lights for both vehicles and pedestrians.
The Court of Appeal found that the respondent driver had not breached their duty of care. The reasoning applied was that the respondent was entitled to proceed through the intersection when the traffic light was green for vehicles. While a driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians, that duty does not extend to anticipating that a pedestrian will disregard a flashing red pedestrian signal and enter the roadway. The appellant's own actions in commencing to cross against a flashing red light were a significant factor in the collision.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent driver had breached their duty of care to the appellant pedestrian. This involved determining whether the respondent had failed to keep a proper lookout, given the circumstances of the collision, including the state of the traffic lights for both vehicles and pedestrians.
The Court of Appeal found that the respondent driver had not breached their duty of care. The reasoning applied was that the respondent was entitled to proceed through the intersection when the traffic light was green for vehicles. While a driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians, that duty does not extend to anticipating that a pedestrian will disregard a flashing red pedestrian signal and enter the roadway. The appellant's own actions in commencing to cross against a flashing red light were a significant factor in the collision.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Breach
-
Duty of Care
-
Costs
-
Negligence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Dungan v Chan [2013] NSWCA 182
Most Recent Citation
Joel Roche v Bill Kigetzis [2015] VSCA 207
Cases Citing This Decision
34
Steen v Senton
[2015] ACTCA 57
Mount Arthur Coal Pty Ltd v Duffin
[2021] NSWCA 49
Boateng v Dharamdas
[2016] NSWCA 183
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Alford v Magee
[1952] HCA 3
Albert v Nominal Defendant
[1999] NSWCA 73
Le Tan Thanh v Van Tri Huynh
[1998] NSWCA 225