Hannan v MacLean - [1989] TASSC 30

Serial No 24/1989
List "A"

CITATION: Hannan v MacLean [1989] TASSC 30; A24/1989

PARTIES:  HANNAN
  v
  MACLEAN

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  2007/1981
DELIVERED ON:  7 July 1989
JUDGMENT OF:  Wright J

Judgment Number: A24/1989
Number of paragraphs: 49

Serial No 24/1989
List "A"
File No 2007/1981

HANNAN v MacLEAN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WRIGHT J

7 July 1989

This is an action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 17 March 1980 at the intersection of Anglesea and Adelaide Streets, South Hobart. The plaintiff presently aged 34 years, was driving his Renault sedan, in a general northerly direction, along Anglesea Street from Davey Street towards Macquarie Street. The original defendant, now deceased, was driving a Falcon taxi in a general easterly direction, along Adelaide Street towards the city.

The front of the plaintiff's vehicle collided with the driver's side of the defendant's vehicle, just behind the central door pillar. The taxi continued across the intersection, mounted the footpath, and its rear collided with the brick fence of the house on the north east corner of the intersection. The taxi was carrying a passenger at the time, but that person did not give evidence at the trial which took place in Hobart in February and March 1989.

The only eye witness to give evidence was the plaintiff himself. Despite the passage of nine years between the date of the accident and his sojourn in the witness box, I see no reason to doubt the essential veracity of his evidence concerning the occurrence of the collision and its immediate aftermath, nor do I regard the evidence of Professor Joubert, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Melbourne as impeaching the essential credibility of the plaintiff in his assessment of the relative speeds of the two vehicles, although as will appear hereafter I have some reservations concerning the actual speeds which he estimated.

On the date of the accident, the plaintiff was employed as a resident medical officer at the Royal Hobart Hospital. He was due to start work in the casualty department at 9.am, although it was usual practice for resident medical officers to meet and discuss case loads for between 15 and 30 minutes prior to the scheduled starting time. The plaintiff left his home in Davey Street at about 8.10am, and the accident occurred within half a kilometre of his residence. It was suggested that he was late for work but there is no substance to this suggestion, in my opinion. There is no reason to conclude that he was in a hurry or was speeding at the time of the accident.

Between Davey and Macquarie Streets, Anglesea Street has a downhill slope. The plaintiff was familiar with the intersection between Anglesea and Adelaide Streets, having traversed that portion of road many times. On approaching the intersection, he looked to the right, with a view to giving way to any oncoming traffic on his right hand side. He…

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 Hannan v MacLean

Details

AGLC: Hannan v MacLean [1989] TASSC 30
Case: [1989] TASSC 30
Decision Date: 7 July 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard a case brought by the plaintiff, Hannan, against the estate of MacLean, the deceased driver of a taxi involved in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred on 17 March 1980, at the intersection of Anglesea and Adelaide Streets in South Hobart, where the plaintiff's vehicle collided with the defendant's taxi. The plaintiff, who was driving his Renault sedan, alleged that the defendant, who was driving a Falcon taxi, failed to yield the right of way and collided with his vehicle at an excessive speed. The plaintiff suffered a crush fracture of the first lumbar vertebrae, along with other injuries.

The court had to determine whether the defendant's negligence was the primary cause of the accident, and if so, what damages should be awarded to the plaintiff. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in any way, such as for not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident, and if so, whether his damages should be reduced accordingly.

The court found that the defendant was indeed negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout, driving at an excessive speed, and not yielding the right of way to the plaintiff's vehicle. The court rejected the defendant's expert witness's opinion on the speed of the vehicles and instead relied on the plaintiff's estimation of their speeds. The court also found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in not wearing a seat belt, but assessed his contribution at only 10%. The court ruled that the plaintiff's failure to wear a seat belt did not significantly contribute to the severity of his injuries and therefore did not warrant a substantial reduction in damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for past economic loss, future economic loss, loss of the capacity to provide services, pain, suffering and loss of amenities, and past and future medical expenses. The total damages awarded were $267,783.26, after deducting the plaintiff's workers' compensation payments and medical expenses received.

Orders