James v Williams No. Scciv-03-383 - [2003] SASC 220

JAMES v WILLIAMS
[2003] SASC 220
Magistrates Appeal

Gray J This is an appeal against a magistrate’s decision to apportion liability following a motor vehicle collision.
Background
The collision occurred at approximately 6.40 pm on 27 March 2002 on Railway Terrace, Mile End. The appellant, Michael Paul James and the respondent, Raymond Neil Williams were driving of the vehicles involved. Both vehicles sustained property damage.
Mr William’s vehicle was travelling south on Railway Terrace. Approximately 300 to 350 metres beyond the underpass of Sir Donald Bradman Drive Mr Williams decided to turn back to travel north on Railway Terrace. He said that he checked the road behind and finding it clear he slowed, indicated his intention to turn and commenced to make a u-turn. As he began to turn his vehicle was struck on the off side front by Mr James’ vehicle.
Mr James was also travelling south on Railway Terrace. He was familiar with the road. He saw Mr William’s vehicle ahead “half on and half off” the bitumen and travelling very slowly. Mr James proceeded cautiously. As he approached Mr William’s vehicle it suddenly without warning started to make a u-turn in front of him. Mr James swerved to the right in an attempt to avoid collision. This manoeuvre was unsuccessful. The vehicles collided with Mr James’ car clipping the off side front of Mr William’s vehicle.
The Magistrates Court
Mr James initiated a claim in the Magistrate’s Court to recover damages. Mr Williams lodged a defence and counterclaim for damage caused to his vehicle. Mr Williams denied that he was negligent. It was claimed in the alternative that Mr James was guilty of contributory negligence.
The matter proceeded to trial. Evidence was given by both drivers and from the only eyewitness, a passenger in Mr James’ vehicle. Differing accounts of the collision were provided. The magistrate made the following findings:
The most obvious difference between the versions of the two drivers relates to the position of [Mr Williams] on the road at the time when he commenced to make his turn. There is also some conflict as to what distance it was that [Mr Williams] travelled between the time when he decided to make the turn and the time when he began in fact to make the turn. If [Mr James] and his witness are to be believed, I would be asked to accept that from the time when they first saw [Mr Williams’] vehicle it was crawling along the shoulder of the road, partly on and partly off the bitumen or perhaps wholly off the bitumen. There is an issue also as to whether or not [Mr Williams] had his right turn indicator operating.
I formed a better and more favourable impression of [Mr William’s] evidence than I did of the evidence of [Mr James] and his passenger.
The suggestion put by [Mr James] and his passenger that [Mr Williams] drove for any substantial distance part on and part off the road strikes me as being…

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 James v Williams No. Scciv-03-383 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: [2003] SASC 220
Decision Date: 21 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of James v Williams, the appellant, Mr. James, and the respondent, Ms. Williams, were involved in a motor vehicle collision. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, where it was determined that both parties were negligent and that each party was entitled to recover one half of their respective damages from the other. The appeal was subsequently brought before the court, which found that the original decision was flawed in its assessment of the contributory negligence of both parties.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the extent of each party's contributory negligence and whether the original decision was correct in apportioning damages. The court needed to assess whether the trial judge's determination of each party's liability was appropriate, given the evidence presented. The court also needed to consider whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the degree of contributory negligence.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the contributory negligence of both parties. The court held that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the evidence presented by the appellant, which demonstrated that the respondent had failed to yield to approaching traffic. The court held that the respondent's failure to yield was a significant contributing factor to the collision, and that the appellant's contributory negligence should not have been assessed at 50%. The court also found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the degree of the appellant's contributory negligence, and that the appellant's negligence should not have been assessed at 100%. The court ultimately found that both parties were equally at fault, and that each party was entitled to recover one half of their respective damages from the other.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and that each party was entitled to recover one half of their damages from the other. The court did not order any further proceedings or provide any additional guidance on the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

This appeal is allowed. Each party is entitled to recover one half of their damages from the other.JUDGMENT CITATIONS LISTED IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE IN JUDGMENT1 ‘Approaching traffic’ is defined as traffic approaching from any direction.2‘give way’ means the driver must slow down and, if necessary stop, to avoid a collision.3 (2001) 212 LSJS 202 at 205. See also Kambouridis v Heyn [2000] SASC 361 4 (1983) 1 DLR (4th) 1705 (1971) 1 SASR 172, note at 172-1736 Unreported Judgment number 9362 17/9/19867 [2003] HCA 228 (1979) 142 CLR 5319 (1989) 63 ALJR 349 10 (1991) 71 CLR 167 11 (1993) 177 CLR 47212 (1999) 73 ALJR 306 at [90-92]13 (1985) 59 ALJR 492 at 49414 (1986) 160 CLR 301 at 311

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.