Franklin v Blick

[2014] ACTSC 273

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Franklin v Blick

Citation:

[2014] ACTSC 273

Hearing Dates:

23 October 2013, 4, 10, 11 April 2014

DecisionDate:

30 October 2014

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

The defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The defendant’s claim for contributory negligence fails.

The plaintiff is awarded $1,659,392.75 in damages.

The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs. This order is stayed for 14 days to allow the parties to apply for a different costs order if they wish to do so.

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

TORTS – Negligence – standard of care – contributory negligence – road accident cases – bicycle accident

DAMAGES – Measure of Damages in Actions for Tort – whether plaintiff will be able to return to pre-injury work duties and hours

Parties:

Michael Anthony Franklin (Plaintiff)

David Blick (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr B Salmon QC and Mr S Whybrow (Plaintiff)

Mr D Lloyd (Defendant)

Solicitors

Bradley Allen Love (Plaintiff)

Lee & Lyons (Defendant)

File Number(s):

SC 625 of 2010

Burns J:

The bicycle accident

1. At approximately 5:45 pm on 17 June 2009 the plaintiff was riding his bicycle in a dedicated bicycle lane in a generally westerly direction on Capital Circle between the exit ramp for traffic travelling from Capital Circle on to Canberra Avenue, and the entry ramp for traffic entering Capital Circle from Canberra Avenue. At the same time, the defendant was riding his bicycle in the same direction as the plaintiff. They were not quite riding side by side. The defendant was slightly in front of and to the left of the plaintiff. At a point between the off ramp and the on ramp, whilst both bicycles ridden by the plaintiff and the defendant were within the dedicated bicycle lane, the bicycle ridden by the defendant hit a piece of wood on the road surface, causing the defendant to veer and collide with the plaintiff. As a consequence, the plaintiff fell from his bicycle onto the road surface in the motor vehicle lane, and was struck by a motor vehicle. There is no suggestion that the driver of the motor vehicle was negligent. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries, and now claims damages from the defendant on the basis that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant.

1. The particulars of negligence pleaded by the plaintiff are:

(a)failure to keep any or any proper lookout, and in particular failure to observe a piece of wood on the bicycle lane surface;

(b)failure to ride his bicycle under any or any proper controls;

(c)failure to steer or control his bicycle so as to avoid the said collision or at all;

(d)colliding with the plaintiff’s bicycle when by the exercise of proper care and control over his said bicycle, he could have avoided so doing;

(e)failure to stop, slow down or swerve or in any other way so as to manage his said bicycle so as to avoid the said collision with the plaintiff’s bicycle;

(f)failure to…