Eden v Jamieson - [2023] QSC 240

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Eden v Jamieson & Anor [2023] QSC 240

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER ROSS EDEN

(plaintiff)

v
LESLIE RONALD JAMIESON

(first defendant)
and
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
(ABN 15 000 122 850)
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S 1573/2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

2 November 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

16, 17 and 23 October 2023

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $987,654.99.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – OTHER PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS, DEFENDANTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES – ROAD ACCIDENTS – PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS – PEDESTRIAN ON OR NEAR ROAD – where the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where the plaintiff was struck by the first defendant at night whilst walking along the Dysart Bypass Road – where there are no artificial street lights – where the first defendant switched his headlights from high beam to low beam when he noticed two cyclists coming towards him on the other side of the road – where the first defendant struck the plaintiff as he swerved to the other side of the road to avoid the plaintiff and subsequently struck one of the two cyclists - where liability and quantum are in issue – whether the first defendant is liable for driving without due care and attention – whether the first defendant is negligent in failing to keep a proper look out – whether the first defendant is negligent in failing to stop, slow down or otherwise avoid the collision.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS – whether contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff in failing to keep a proper look-out by walking with his back to the first defendant’s vehicle – whether the plaintiff failed to alert the first defendant of his presence on the road – whether the plaintiff failed to avail himself of either of the nature strips by the road – whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in wearing dark clothing – whether the plaintiff is in contravention of s 238 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulations 2019 (Qld) (TORUM) – whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety - whether the onus of establishing contributory negligence is placed on the defendant – whether the defendant has discharged the onus placed upon it to show that the plaintiff is guilty of negligence.

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – INCOME LOSS AND LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – GENERALLY – where plaintiff was about to obtain work as an electrician working at the Peak Downs Mine – where the plaintiff would have earned $65 per hour for 12 hour shifts working 4 days on 3 days off – where the plaintiff would have earnings of approximately $2,020 nett per week (npw) – where after the incident the plaintiff was unable to perform work as a mining electrician.

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 Eden v Jamieson

Details

AGLC: Eden v Jamieson [2023] QSC 240
Case: [2023] QSC 240
Decision Date: 2 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Eden v Jamieson involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff, Eden, was injured while walking along the Dysart Bypass Road at night. The first defendant, Jamieson, was driving and struck the plaintiff after switching his headlights from high beam to low beam upon noticing two cyclists on the opposite side of the road. The incident resulted in the plaintiff being hit, and subsequently, Jamieson collided with one of the cyclists. The legal issues focused on whether Jamieson was liable for driving without due care and attention, failing to keep a proper lookout, and failing to stop or slow down to avoid the collision. Additionally, the case examined whether Eden was contributorily negligent by walking with his back to the vehicle, not alerting Jamieson, failing to use the nature strips, wearing dark clothing, and not adhering to the requirements of s 238 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulations 2019 (Qld).

The court found that Jamieson was negligent in his actions leading up to the accident, particularly in failing to maintain a proper lookout and adjusting his headlights in a manner that reduced visibility. The court held that Jamieson was liable for the damages caused to Eden. The court also examined the issue of contributory negligence on the part of Eden, considering his actions and attire, but ultimately found that Jamieson had not discharged the onus to show that Eden's negligence contributed to the accident. The court assessed Eden's damages, taking into account his prospective earnings from employment as an electrician at the Peak Downs Mine, which were significantly impacted by the injuries sustained in the accident.

The final orders of the court included judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $987,654.99, reflecting the total amount of damages awarded to Eden for the injuries and losses incurred as a result of the accident.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $987,654.99.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Eden v Jamieson & Anor [2023] QSC 240
PARTIES:	CHRISTOPHER ROSS EDEN (plaintiff) v LESLIE RONALD JAMIESON (first defendant) and ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED (ABN 15 000 122 850) (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S 1573/2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	2 November 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	16, 17 and 23 October 2023
JUDGE:	Crow J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $987,654.99.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – OTHER PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS, DEFENDANTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES – ROAD ACCIDENTS – PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS – PEDESTRIAN ON OR NEAR ROAD – where the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where the plaintiff was struck by the first defendant at night whilst walking along the Dysart Bypass Road – where there are no artificial street lights – where the first defendant switched his headlights from high beam to low beam when he noticed two cyclists coming towards him on the other side of the road – where the first defendant struck the plaintiff as he swerved to the other side of the road to avoid the plaintiff and subsequently struck one of the two cyclists - where liability and quantum are in issue – whether the first defendant is liable for driving without due care and attention – whether the first defendant is negligent in failing to keep a proper look out – whether the first defendant is negligent in failing to stop, slow down or otherwise avoid the collision. TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS – whether contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff in failing to keep a proper look-out by walking with his back to the first defendant’s vehicle – whether the plaintiff failed to alert the first defendant of his presence on the road – whether the plaintiff failed to avail himself of either of the nature strips by the road – whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in wearing dark clothing – whether the plaintiff is in contravention of s 238 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulations 2019 (Qld) (TORUM) – whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety - whether the onus of establishing contributory negligence is placed on the defendant – whether the defendant has discharged the onus placed upon it to show that the plaintiff is guilty of negligence. DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – INCOME LOSS AND LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – GENERALLY – where plaintiff was about to obtain work as an electrician working at the Peak Downs Mine – where the plaintiff would have earned $65 per hour for 12 hour shifts working 4 days on 3 days off – where the plaintiff would have earnings of approximately $2,020 nett per week (npw) – where after the incident the plaintiff was unable to perform work as a mining electrician.