Hannan v MacLean
Case
•
[1989] TASSC 30
•7 July 1989
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Hannan v MacLean [1989] TASSC 30
[1989] TASSC 30
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Duty
-
Contributory Negligence
-
Damages
-
Causation
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Hannan v MacLean [1989] TASSC 30
Most Recent Citation
Aitkenhead v Kaufline (No 3) [2014] ACTSC 83
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Aitkenhead v Kaufline (No 3)
[2014] ACTSC 83
Aitkenhead v Kaufline (No 3)
[2014] ACTSC 83
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
0
Sibley v Kais
[1967] HCA 43
Sibley v Kais
[1967] HCA 43
Pennington v Norris
[1956] HCA 26