Evans v Lindsay

Case [2006] NSWCA 354


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 JA

11 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

Details
AGLC
Evans v Lindsay [2006] NSWCA 354
Case
[2006] NSWCA 354
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, drivers of a motor vehicle, appealed against a finding of breach of duty of care and the assessment of contributory negligence by the trial judge. They also challenged the award of damages concerning future attendant care, the cost of funds management, and the calculation of future economic loss. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in dark, wet conditions on Kangaloon Road, Bowral, where the respondent, a pedestrian, was struck by the appellants' vehicle.

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

The appellants appeal both against the finding of breach of duty of care and against her Honour’s assessment of contributory negligence. They also appeal against her Honour’s award of damages in respect of future attendant care; the cost of funds management; and in respect of the wrong use of a multiplier in the quantification of future economic loss.Background facts The accident occurred at about 4.45am on Kangaloon Road, Bowral, in a built-up area near the driveway of the Manning Hotel. The respondent lived in Kangaloon Road, approximately 400m from where the accident occurred. He was walking away from where he lived and towards Bowral at the time of the accident. The first appellant had travelled through Bowral along Bong Bong Road, which is the main street, and turned left at a roundabout at the southern end of the shopping centre, and then entered Kangaloon Road. The speed limit in both Bong Bong Street and Kangaloon Road was 60km per hour. The area around the roundabout was “quite well lit” and Kangaloon Road itself was lit by overhead street lights which provided quite good illumination around each light, but the roadway was dark in between the light posts. There was a golf club, golf course, cemetery, paddocks, housing and hotel and resort accommodation on both sides of the road. The first appellant said that he was accelerating after having come through the roundabout. It was still dark. It had been raining and the road was wet. The first appellant said that he was looking as far ahead as the eye could see and that he could only see as far ahead as the area illuminated by his headlights and that he did not see any pedestrians. Mr Pieremont said this was an area where even early in the morning he would be keeping an eye out for pedestrians. The accident occurred in between street lights on the left hand side of the road. The respondent himself was wearing mostly dark clothing. The first appellant described the respondent as walking very slowly towards the truck and not changing course as the truck approached. The respondent was struck by the middle of the front of the truck. The truck left a skid-mark of 26.2m. It is not clear, however, how far the truck travelled from the time that the first appellant applied the brakes until the truck hit the respondent, as the respondent was hit by the truck while it was still moving and was carried along on the front of it for some distance, before the vehicle came to a stop and the respondent fell to the ground. On the evening prior to the accident, the respondent had been at the Bowral Hotel. He had been with his brother at the hotel sometime between 12.30 to 1.30am. His brother said the respondent did not appear to be intoxicated at that time. At about 3.15am, the local police received a report that there was a male person “wearing white pants and a top with blue stripes staggering all over the road”. Two police officers, including Senior Constable Rigby, went to Kangaloon Road where they saw a person walking along the road in an easterly direction, between the kerb of the southern alignment of the road and the white-coloured edge line or fog line. The person was at that time walking in a southerly direction away from the roundabout and towards the golf course.

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.