Eccles v Lane - [2022] WADC 105

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ECCLES -v- LANE [2022] WADC 105
CORAM:   PRIOR DCJ
HEARD:   28-29 SEPTEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   6 DECEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1705 of 2018
BETWEEN:   GLENN MICHAEL ECCLES
Plaintiff
AND
DANIEL JAMES LANE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Motor vehicle accident - Liability only - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5B, s 5K

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff
Liability apportioned 90/10 in favour of the plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr J R Brooksby
Defendant	:	Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Kuscevich & Associates
Defendant	:	Mills Oakley

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

Vines v Deegan (1995) 21 MVR 113

PRIOR DCJ:

Introduction

The plaintiff's claim is for damages for personal injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred at approximately midday on Sunday, 20 November 2016.
The quantum of the plaintiff's damages has been agreed and the matter comes before the court only on the question of liability.

The accident

The plaintiff was driving a Ford Ranger utility north on Great Northern Highway, Bindoon. He had intended to go to the Bindoon Bakery but missed the turnoff (to the left) and proceeded north to a point where he was able to turn around.
As the plaintiff was turning right, his vehicle was struck by a road train driven by the defendant.
The plaintiff alleges that the collision was caused by the negligent driving of the defendant. The defendant denies negligence and alleges that the collision was caused wholly, or in part, by the negligence of the plaintiff.
The negligence alleged against the defendant is particularised in the amended statement of claim as follows:
PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT
i.Driving too fast in the circumstances.
ii.Failing to keep any or any proper lookout.
iii.Failing to sound his horn to warn the Plaintiff of the presence of the Defendant's vehicle.
iv.Passing/overtaking the Plaintiff's vehicle notwithstanding the Plaintiff's vehicle was indicating its intention to make a right turn.
v.Crossing over into the south-bound lane in order to effect a passing manoeuvre when it was unsafe to do so.
vi.Failing to brake, slow down or otherwise control his vehicle so as to avoid colliding with the Plaintiff's vehicle.
The plaintiff's case is that he indicated to turn right for a distance of 50 m before commencing a right-hand turn onto the apron of a vacant shop. His vehicle was just to the left of the centre of the road when he commenced the turn.
The defendant's position is that the plaintiff in fact indicated to turn left and moved in that direction before attempting to make a U-turn across without giving way to the defendant's vehicle.
The defendant denies that he was negligent and says that the accident was caused wholly, or in part, by the plaintiff's own negligence particularised in the defence as follows:
Particulars of Plaintiff's Negligence
…
4.1he turned his vehicle into the path of the Defendant's…

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 Eccles v Lane

Details

AGLC: Eccles v Lane [2022] WADC 105
Case: [2022] WADC 105
Decision Date: 6 DECEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Eccles v Lane was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, involving a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff, Eccles, sued the defendant, Lane, for damages arising from the collision. The dispute centred on the issue of negligence and whether Lane's actions constituted a breach of duty that directly caused Eccles' injuries. The plaintiff argued that Lane was negligent in failing to maintain a proper lookout, while the defendant claimed that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances and that the accident was unavoidable.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether Lane's conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in his position, thereby establishing negligence. The court also had to consider the extent to which Lane's actions contributed to the accident and if there were any contributory factors on the part of Eccles. Furthermore, the court examined whether the accident was an inevitable occurrence despite both parties' reasonable actions.

In delivering the judgment, the court assessed the specific facts and circumstances of the accident. It found that Lane was indeed negligent in not maintaining an adequate lookout, which was a crucial factor in the collision. The court emphasised that the standard of care required in such situations is objective, and Lane's failure to meet this standard resulted in a breach of duty. The court also considered the impact of any contributory negligence on the part of Eccles but concluded that it did not absolve Lane of liability. The court held that the accident was not an inevitable occurrence given the circumstances, and Lane's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injuries to Eccles.

Orders