Hobbs v Fairall and Fairall - [2016] NSWDC 116

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Hobbs v Fairall & Fairall [2016] NSWDC 116
Hearing dates: 2-6 May 2016; 11-12 May 2016
Date of orders: 26 May 2016
Decision date: 26 May 2016
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $339,242.40

Catchwords:
CIVIL – Action for damages for personal injury – Claim under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MACA) – Plaintiff thrown from horse whilst riding along side of bitumenised road, on road reservation – Plaintiff alleges his horse startled by motor vehicle owned by first defendant and driven by second defendant – Factual dispute – Question of what caused horse to shy and buck – Other arguments included noise of motorcycle being ridden behind defendants’ vehicle, overfeeding (“overfuelling”) of plaintiff’s horse; numerous possible stimuli – Whether a “motor accident” within MACA – Negligence – Whether “blameless motor accident” within MACA
Quantum of damages – Plaintiff 64 years at time of accident, 69 at trial – Whether plaintiff would have worked to age 70 years – Severely injured – Quantum of non-economic loss (19% WPI)
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Cases Cited: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 26; (2005) 221 CLR 568
Axiak v Ingram [2012] NSWCA 311
Connaughton v Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 89
Cook v Cook [1986] 8 CA 73:(1986) 162 CLR 376
Gordon v Truong [2014] NSWCA 93
Hawthorne v Hillcoat [2008] NSWCA 340
Hossain v Mirdha [2015] NSWDC 108
Leach v The Nominal Defendant [2014] NSWCA 257
Mamo v Surace [2014] NSWCA 58
Mani v The Nominal Defendant [2002] QSC 152
Marien v Gardiner [2013] NSWCA 396
McLennan v The Nominal Defendant [2014] NSWCA 332
Melenewycz v Whitfield [2015] NSWSC 1482
Nettleton v Rondeau [2014] NSWSC 93
O'Brien v Davjam Enterprises Pty Limited [2014] NSWDC 270
Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Limited [2006] HCA 11; (2006) 228 CLR 529
Nominal Defendant v Hawkins [2011] NSWCA 93
Syed v Crumpton [2016] NSWSC 500
Western Australia v Container Handlers Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 24; (2004) 218 CLR 89.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Hobbs (Plaintiff)
Carolyn Maree Fairall (First defendant)
Holly Lee Fairall (Second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr I Roberts SC (Plaintiff)
Mr B Wilson (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Walsh & Blair (Plaintiff)
Hall & Wilcox (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2014/00179721
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Ex tempore

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Mr Anthony Hobbs, of Cartwrights Hill, a northern suburb of Wagga Wagga, brings an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by him on 24 September 2011 when he was thrown from a horse he was riding beside the carriageway of Cooramin Street, Cartwrights Hill. The plaintiff alleges that the negligence of the second defendant, Ms Holly Lee Fairall, caused his horse to throw him from the saddle onto the kerbing and guttering on the north side of Cooramin Street. The second defendant was driving a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hobbs v Fairall and Fairall and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWDC 116
Decision Date: 26 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hobbs v Fairall and Fairall, the plaintiff, Mr Hobbs, sought damages for personal injuries sustained while riding a horse. The incident occurred when the horse was startled and threw Mr Hobbs, resulting in severe injuries. He alleged that the cause of the disturbance was a motor vehicle owned by the first defendant and driven by the second defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues were whether the incident constituted a "motor accident" under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MACA), and if it was a "blameless motor accident" within the meaning of the Act. Additionally, the court had to consider the quantum of damages, including the plaintiff's potential future earnings and non-economic loss.

The court examined the circumstances leading to the horse's reaction, including the possibility that the vehicle, a motorcycle, or overfeeding of the horse could have caused the disturbance. The plaintiff argued that the vehicle was the primary cause, while the defendants contended that other factors were more likely. The court found that the motor vehicle was the most plausible cause of the horse's reaction, given the evidence presented. It was determined that the incident was a "motor accident" under the MACA and qualified as a "blameless motor accident." Regarding damages, the court assessed the plaintiff's future lost earnings and awarded compensation for his non-economic loss, considering his age and the severity of his injuries.

The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $339,242.40 in damages, reflecting the compensation for his injuries and losses. The court held that the defendants were liable for the accident and subsequent injuries, and that the compensation awarded was appropriate given the circumstances. The decision underscores the importance of determining the cause of an incident in motor accident compensation claims and the application of the MACA in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $339,242.40

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hobbs v Fairall & Fairall [2016] NSWDC 116
Hearing dates:	2-6 May 2016; 11-12 May 2016
Date of orders:	26 May 2016
Decision date:	26 May 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $339,242.40
Catchwords:	CIVIL – Action for damages for personal injury – Claim under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MACA) – Plaintiff thrown from horse whilst riding along side of bitumenised road, on road reservation – Plaintiff alleges his horse startled by motor vehicle owned by first defendant and driven by second defendant – Factual dispute – Question of what caused horse to shy and buck – Other arguments included noise of motorcycle being ridden behind defendants’ vehicle, overfeeding (“overfuelling”) of plaintiff’s horse; numerous possible stimuli – Whether a “motor accident” within MACA – Negligence – Whether “blameless motor accident” within MACA Quantum of damages – Plaintiff 64 years at time of accident, 69 at trial – Whether plaintiff would have worked to age 70 years – Severely injured – Quantum of non-economic loss (19% WPI)
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 26; (2005) 221 CLR 568 Axiak v Ingram [2012] NSWCA 311 Connaughton v Pacific Rail Engineering Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 89 Cook v Cook [1986] 8 CA 73:(1986) 162 CLR 376 Gordon v Truong [2014] NSWCA 93 Hawthorne v Hillcoat [2008] NSWCA 340 Hossain v Mirdha [2015] NSWDC 108 Leach v The Nominal Defendant [2014] NSWCA 257 Mamo v Surace [2014] NSWCA 58 Mani v The Nominal Defendant [2002] QSC 152 Marien v Gardiner [2013] NSWCA 396 McLennan v The Nominal Defendant [2014] NSWCA 332 Melenewycz v Whitfield [2015] NSWSC 1482 Nettleton v Rondeau [2014] NSWSC 93 O'Brien v Davjam Enterprises Pty Limited [2014] NSWDC 270 Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Limited [2006] HCA 11; (2006) 228 CLR 529 Nominal Defendant v Hawkins [2011] NSWCA 93 Syed v Crumpton [2016] NSWSC 500 Western Australia v Container Handlers Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 24; (2004) 218 CLR 89.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Anthony Hobbs (Plaintiff) Carolyn Maree Fairall (First defendant) Holly Lee Fairall (Second defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr I Roberts SC (Plaintiff) Mr B Wilson (Defendants) Solicitors: Walsh & Blair (Plaintiff) Hall & Wilcox (Defendants)
File Number(s):	2014/00179721
Publication restriction:	No