NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CITATION: Keith Bruce Evans & Anor v Stuart James Lindsay [2006] NSWCA 354
FILE NUMBER(S):
CA 40795/05
HEARING DATE(S): 15 August 2006
DECISION DATE: 11/12/2006
PARTIES:
Keith Bruce Evans (First Appellant)
Quality Bakers Australia Ltd t/as Riga Bakeries (Second Appellant)
Stuart James Lindsay by his next friend Robert Bryden (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA Ipp JA Bryson JA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2788/03
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Balla DCJ
COUNSEL:
R Bartlett SC; D J Nolan (Appellants)
A J Lidden; E Welsh (Respondents)
SOLICITORS:
Sparke Helmore (Appellants)
Bryden's Law Office (Respondents)
CATCHWORDS:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT – breach of duty – standard of care required of driver – whether driver had sufficient control of speed and direction of vehicle to react to events within vicinity of car – dark wet conditions in built-up area – whether driver ought to have been driving slower than speed limit
DUTY OF CARE – driver of motor vehicle – whether reasonable response taken to risk of injury – whether failure to keep proper lookout
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – evaluative exercise – insufficient regard by respondent for own personal safety
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT – reasoning process – whether trial judge engaged in hindsight reasoning – whether trial judge’s findings contained internal inconsistencies
LEGISLATION CITED:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B, 5F, 5G
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s 138
DECISION:
1. Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
2. The judgment of the trial judge to be varied so as to take account of the assessment of contributory negligence and the variations to the award of damages that are required by the conclusions I have reached on Grounds 3 and 4
3. The parties to bring in short minutes of order within seven days of the date of this judgment in accordance with the reasons for judgment
4. The appellants are to pay 80 per cent of the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
JUDGMENT:
- 40 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40795/05
BEAZLEY JA
IPP JA
BRYSON JA11 December 2006
KEITH BRUCE EVANS AND QUALITY BAKERS AUSTRALIA LIMITED TRADING AS RIGA BAKERIES
v
STUART JAMES LINDSAY BY HIS NEXT FRIEND ROBERT BRYDEN
Headnote
Facts
The respondent was walking along the middle of Kangaloon Road, Bowral, having earlier left the Bowral Hotel in an inebriated condition, when he was hit by a truck owned by the second appellant and driven by the first appellant and sustained severe brain injuries. The accident occurred in the early hours of 27 February 2000, in conditions that were dark and wet but illuminated by streetlights and the vehicle’s low beam headlights. The first appellant had not previously driven along the road, which was in a built-up area, and had been driving within the speed limit of 60 kph.
The trial judge found that the first appellant was negligent as he was driving too fast for the conditions and was…
Continue reading Evans v Lindsay
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Evans v Lindsay [2006] NSWCA 354
- Case
- [2006] NSWCA 354
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the first appellant breached their duty of care to the respondent by failing to maintain a proper lookout and by driving at a speed that was not safe for the prevailing conditions, despite being within the speed limit. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent was contributorily negligent by failing to take sufficient regard for their own safety. The appellants also contended that the trial judge engaged in hindsight reasoning and made inconsistent findings.
The appellate court allowed the appeal in part and dismissed it in part, varying the trial judge's judgment to reflect the assessment of contributory negligence and necessary adjustments to the damages award. The court found that while the trial judge's reasoning process was not flawed by hindsight, the assessment of contributory negligence required modification. The appellants were ordered to pay 80 per cent of the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; 2. The judgment of the trial judge to be varied so as to take account of the assessment of contributory negligence and the variations to the award of damages that are required by the conclusions I have reached on Grounds 3 and 4; 3. The parties to bring in short minutes of order within seven days of the date of this judgment in accordance with the reasons for judgment; 4. The appellants are to pay 80 per cent of the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.