Egan v Mangarelli

The appeal concerned a motor vehicle accident where the appellant, a cyclist, sustained injuries after going under a bus driven by the respondent. The appellant alleged the respondent breached his duty of care by failing to maintain a proper lookout. The court was required to determine whether the respondent, as the driver, failed to pay reasonable attention to events on or near the roadway, thereby breaching his duty of care.

The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the appellant's contributory negligence at 70 per cent, specifically in comparing the culpability and the relative importance of each party's actions. Further issues related to damages included whether the trial judge had erred in awarding the cost of a prosthesis the appellant was unlikely to fully utilise, in allowing certain amounts for housing modifications, and in awarding amounts for past domestic care. The court was also asked to consider whether the primary judge failed to discount the award for future domestic care, given the appellant was a smoker.

Applying the principles from *Manley v Alexander* [2005] HCA 79, the court found that the respondent driver had not breached his duty of care. Regarding contributory negligence, the court applied the principles from *Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd* [1985] HCA 34 and concluded there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's contributory negligence at 70 per cent. The court also found no error in the trial judge's awards for damages, including the prosthesis, housing modifications, and domestic care, and did not consider it necessary to discount future domestic care based on the appellant's smoking.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. The cross-appeal was also dismissed.