Gui v Weston - [2011] VSCA 265

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2010 0157

JIANG HONG GUI	Appellant
	v
DAVID GLYN WESTON	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MANDIE JA, BONGIORNO JA and SIFRIS AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	25 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT	2 September 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2011] VSCA 265
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Gui v Weston (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Saccardo, 17 November 2010)

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Transport accident – Pedestrian crossing road hastily at night on flashing red or red pedestrian light – Hit by motor vehicle – Jury returned verdict that there was no negligence on the part of the driver – Whether verdict was irrational – Verdict was one that no reasonable jury could have reached – Appeal allowed.

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Transport accident – Causation – Whether direction to jury on causation was deficient – Where direction suggested the jury’s task was to consider which of the appellant or the respondent was negligent – Appeal allowed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr Stephen McCredie	Henry Carus & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr Phillip Priest QC with Mr Peter Gates	Transport Accident Commission

SIFRIS AJA:

Introduction

Jiang Hong Gui (‘the appellant’) instituted proceedings against David Glyn Weston (‘the respondent’) in the County Court for damages arising from a collision that took place on the night of 11 November 2004.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Springvale and Waverley roads in Melbourne (‘the intersection’). The appellant, a pedestrian, was crossing Waverley road when he was struck by the respondent’s car. The appellant alleged that the respondent was negligent and claimed loss and damage arising from the accident.

The trial before Judge Saccardo and jury was heard over a period of six days.

On 17 November 2010, the jury returned a verdict for the respondent. They found that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent which was a cause of the appellant’s injury, loss and damage.[1]
[1]This was, in fact, question 1 that was referred to the jury. The question was in the following terms: ‘Was there any negligence on the part of the defendant which was a cause of the plaintiff’s injury, loss and damage?’

The appellant appeals on the grounds that the verdict in favour of the respondent was one that no reasonable jury could have reached and further, that the trial judge failed to give adequate directions to the jury on the issue of causation and the use of certain evidence.

The evidence

The appellant gave evidence at the trial that the collision happened around 9:30 pm on 11 November 2004. It was dark and raining. He had just been in another accident to the north of the intersection and intended to seek help from the service station on the southeast side of Springvale road. The collision happened when he crossed the intersection from west to east on the north side of Waverley road.

The appellant maintained that when he started to cross the intersection, the walking…

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 Gui v Weston

Details

AGLC: Gui v Weston [2011] VSCA 265
Case: [2011] VSCA 265
Decision Date: 2 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gui v Weston involved a pedestrian who was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing a road at night. The pedestrian was crossing during a flashing red or solid red pedestrian light. The pedestrian sought compensation for injuries sustained in the accident. The jury found that the driver was not negligent and returned a verdict in favour of the driver. The pedestrian appealed the decision, arguing that the jury's verdict was irrational and that the direction given to the jury regarding causation was deficient.

The legal issues before the court included whether the jury's verdict was irrational and whether the direction given to the jury regarding causation was deficient. The court held that the jury's verdict was one that no reasonable jury could have reached. The court also found that the direction given to the jury on causation was deficient because it suggested that the jury's task was to consider which of the parties was negligent rather than whether the driver's negligence caused the accident.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the verdict of the jury. The court found that the direction given to the jury on causation was deficient because it did not properly direct the jury to consider whether the driver's negligence caused the accident. The court held that the verdict was one that no reasonable jury could have reached given the evidence presented. The case was remitted to the jury for a new trial.

No further orders were made in the case. The court held that the appeal was allowed on the grounds that the direction given to the jury on causation was deficient and that the verdict was one that no reasonable jury could have reached. The case was remitted to the jury for a new trial.

Orders