Hunter v Shelly

In Hunter v Shelly, the plaintiff, Hunter, claimed damages for personal injuries sustained in a road accident against the first defendant, Shelly, who was driving the utility vehicle in which he was a passenger, and the second defendant, who was alleged to be the owner of the vehicle. The accident occurred when Shelly swerved to avoid a kangaroo that had jumped onto the road, causing Hunter to be thrown from the back of the vehicle. Hunter alleged that Shelly was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and in driving at an excessive speed. Hunter also consumed a substantial amount of alcohol prior to the accident, which he admitted contributed to his injuries.

The court was required to determine whether Shelly was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for animals on the road and in driving at a speed that was unreasonable under the circumstances. The court also needed to assess whether Hunter was contributorily negligent in riding in the back of the utility vehicle and failing to look out for his own safety, particularly given his level of intoxication at the time of the accident. Finally, the court needed to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to Hunter for his injuries, taking into account his work history, the impact of the injuries on his ability to work, and the costs of any gratuitous care and assistance he may require.

The court found that Shelly was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for animals on the road, and that this was a significant contributing factor to the accident. The court also found that Shelly was driving at an excessive speed, which exacerbated the severity of Hunter's injuries. However, the court found that Hunter was also contributorily negligent in riding in the back of the utility vehicle and failing to take reasonable steps to protect himself from harm, particularly given his level of intoxication. The court determined that Hunter's damages should be reduced by 50% to reflect his contributory negligence.

The court awarded Hunter damages in the amount of $343,830.70, reflecting the impact of his injuries on his ability to work and the costs of any gratuitous care and assistance he may require. The court found that Hunter would be able to return to the workforce following a pain management program, and that he was therefore not entitled to damages for gratuitous care and assistance beyond the costs of the program itself. Judgment was entered for Hunter against the defendants in the sum of $343,830.70.