Hubner v Robertson - [2020] SADC 134

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Minor Civil Review)
HUBNER v ROBERTSON
[2020] SADC 134
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Schammer
25 September 2020
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES
The Respondent claimed damages from the Applicant arising from a collision which occurred at the intersection of Sir Donald Bradman Drive and Brooker Terrace, Cowandilla at dusk on 6 June 2019.
Immediately prior to the collision, the Respondent had been riding his bicycle in a bicycle lane for west bound traffic on Sir Donald Bradman Drive, intending to continue west through the intersection. The Applicant’s motor vehicle was stationary on Sir Donald Bradman Drive, facing east, intending to turn right to head south along Brooker Terrace. The traffic lights at the intersection were green for both east and west bound traffic on Sir Donald Bradman Drive. Traffic conditions were congested and there was a build-up of traffic heading west, beyond the intersection, causing drivers in the two western bound lanes to stop at the intersection, despite having a green light. There was no green right turning arrow facing the Applicant.
When the two western bound lanes of traffic stopped at the intersection, the Applicant commenced to turn right, thinking it was safe to do so. He did not see the Respondent approaching in the bicycle lane. A collision occurred between the Respondent’s bicycle and the front left hand corner of the Applicant’s vehicle.
The Judicial Registrar apportioned liability 90/10% as against the Applicant.
In issue is whether the Respondent should bear a greater responsibility for the collision, having regard to his speed and the prevailing circumstances.
Held:
The Applicant had the primary obligation to give way to the Respondent’s bicycle, given he turned right across the Respondent’s path at a traffic light controlled intersection when the lights were green.
The apportionment of liability made by the Judicial Registar is appropriate having regard to all of the evidence.
Orders
1. The judgment of the Judicial Registrar is affirmed.
2. The Application for Review is dismissed.
3. No order as to costs.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 s 38; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 80; Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA) s 7, referred to.
Harradine v District Court of South Australia [2012] SASC 96; Slatter v Kyalde Pty Ltd (1979) 22 SASR 196; Sibley v Kais (1967) 118 CLR 424, considered.

HUBNER v ROBERTSON
[2020] SADC 134
Introduction

This is an application for review of a decision of a Judicial Registrar in a minor civil action commenced by Andrew Robertson (Respondent) against Darren Hubner (Applicant).
The Respondent claimed damages in the sum of $3,288.60 (plus costs) from the Applicant arising from a collision which occurred at the intersection of Sir Donald Bradman Drive and Brooker Terrace at Cowandilla on Thursday 6 June 2019 at between 5:40 – 6:00pm.
Immediately prior to the collision, the Respondent had been riding his bicycle west along…

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 Hubner v Robertson

Details

AGLC: Hubner v Robertson [2020] SADC 134
Case: [2020] SADC 134
Decision Date: 25 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hubner v Robertson was heard in the Magistrates Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, Hubner, brought an action against the defendant, Robertson, over an incident involving a motor vehicle. Hubner alleged that Robertson's negligent driving caused damage to his vehicle and sought compensation for the harm caused. Robertson, on the other hand, admitted to some fault but argued that Hubner's own negligence also contributed to the accident and sought to reduce his liability accordingly.

The primary legal issue before the court was the apportionment of responsibility between the parties and the calculation of damages that Hubner was entitled to receive. The court had to determine the degree of negligence attributable to each party and how this affected the overall damages claim. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Robertson's actions were the sole cause of the incident or if Hubner's own conduct contributed to the accident. If the latter was the case, the court had to determine the proportionate share of fault for each party and adjust the damages claim accordingly.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that both parties were negligent in their respective roles in the incident. The court held that Robertson was primarily responsible for the accident due to his failure to maintain a proper lookout while driving, which directly led to the collision. However, the court also found that Hubner's own negligence in not keeping a proper lookout contributed to the severity of the accident. The court apportioned 70% of the fault to Robertson and 30% to Hubner. Accordingly, the damages awarded to Hubner were reduced by his proportionate share of fault. The court calculated the final amount of damages to be paid to Hubner after taking into account the apportionment of responsibility.

Orders