Fardi v Loveday - [2010] SADC 25

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
FARDI v LOVEDAY
[2010] SADC 25
Judgment of His Honour Judge Nicholson
9 March 2010
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DAMAGE - CAUSATION - GENERALLY
In 2000, the plaintiff (42 years old at the trial) was involved in a slow speed, low impact motor vehicle accident. The defendant collided with the plaintiff's vehicle at traffic lights and admitted being at fault. Plaintiff claimed to have suffered physical and psychiatric injuries as a result of the accident which disabled him, inter alia, from working in his pre-accident occupation of self employed taxi driver. Plaintiff's evidence not accepted; no loss proved to have been caused by the accident. HELD: claim dismissed.

EVIDENCE
Comparison of handwriting.
Wrongs Act 1936 s35A; Wrongs (Liability and Damages for Personal Injury) Amendment Act 2002 s4, s6, s7; Limitation of Actions Act 1936 s48; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s30, s45C, s59j; Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s31, s73A, referred to.
Grayden v R (1989) WAR 208; R v Mazzone (1985) 43 SASR 330; Adami v R (1959) 108 CLR 605; Daley v R [1979] TasSR 75; R v Leroy [1984] 2 NSWLR 441, considered.

FARDI v LOVEDAY
[2010] SADC 25
Introduction

The plaintiff, Mustafa Fardi, claims damages against the defendant for personal injuries and consequential financial loss said to have been caused by a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Grand Junction Road and Bower Road, Ethelton on 13 July 2000. Insofar as any assessment of quantum would be concerned, the action is subject to the constraints imposed by s35A of the Wrongs Act 1936. Section 35A was repealed by s4 of the Wrongs (Liability and Damages for Personal Injury) Amendment Act 2002. However, s35A applies to this action because the accident which gave rise to the claim occurred before the commencement of the new provisions contained in the amending legislation.[1] The defendant has admitted in the defence that, after the plaintiff brought his vehicle to a halt at traffic lights, she caused her vehicle to hit the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle and was negligent in so doing. I will say more about the nature of the collision when I come to review the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant on this issue. However, whilst liability is not in issue,[2] causation of loss and the quantum of any loss proved to have been caused came under strong challenge by the defendant.
[1] Sections 6 and 7 of the Wrongs (Liability and Damages for Personal Injury) Amendment Act 2002.
[2] I use the term “liability” in this context to refer to the question of whether or not the defendant breached her duty of care. Damage is the gist of the action in negligence and, strictly speaking, if no loss is proved to have been caused, no liability arises.
The plaintiff’s summons and statement of claim was filed on 25 November 2003, little over 3 years and 4 months after…

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 Fardi v Loveday

Details

AGLC: Fardi v Loveday [2010] SADC 25
Case: [2010] SADC 25
Decision Date: 9 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fardi v Loveday involved a claim for damages following a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2000. The plaintiff, who was 42 years old at the time of the trial, alleged that he sustained physical and psychiatric injuries from a low impact collision at traffic lights. The defendant admitted fault for the accident. The plaintiff claimed that the injuries he sustained from the accident prevented him from continuing his pre-accident occupation as a self-employed taxi driver. The trial court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had indeed suffered damages as a result of the accident and if the defendant was liable for those damages.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the plaintiff had proved that the accident caused him to suffer physical or psychiatric injuries that resulted in a loss, specifically, the loss of his ability to work as a taxi driver. The court had to examine the evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the injuries and their impact on his ability to work. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the credibility of the plaintiff's evidence, particularly in light of the comparison of handwriting samples, which played a significant role in the trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was not accepted, and no loss was proved to have been caused by the accident. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, including the comparison of handwriting samples, which undermined the plaintiff's claims. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had not established the causal link between the accident and the alleged injuries, nor had he proved the extent of any loss suffered. The plaintiff's claim for damages was dismissed.

Orders