SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
S APCI 2012 0207
| JOHN RONALD WATERFALL | Appellant |
| v | |
| STUART ROSS ANTONY | Respondent |
---
| JUDGES | REDLICH, WHELAN and SANTAMARIA JJA |
| WHERE HELD | MELBOURNE |
| DATE OF HEARING | 21 October 2013 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 19 March 2014 |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION | [2014] VSCA 44 |
| JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM | [2012] VSC 458 (Beach J) |
---
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Accident between a motor vehicle towing a caravan and a motorcycle – Accident occurred in Western Australia – Application of the law of Western Australia – Claim in negligence – Duty of care – Breach of duty – Contributory negligence – Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA).
---
| Appearances: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Appellant | Mr C W R Harrison SC with Mr I R Fehring | Stringer Clark |
| For the Respondent | Mr A N Murdoch SC with Mr S E Gladman | Hunt & Hunt |
REDLICH JA:
I agree with Santamaria JA for the reasons he gives that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant’s contributory negligence assessed at 50 per cent.
I add only this observation. The respondent’s evidence that he had been travelling in the centre lane travelling west for some distance before the collision cannot be accepted. The independent witness, Le Serf, who the trial judge appears to have accepted as a credible witness, observed that 20 per cent of the respondent’s caravan at the point of collision was still occupying the left-hand lane at an angle of 45 degrees to 60 degrees pointing towards the turn-off road. The inference is inescapable that the respondent’s vehicle and caravan had not completed moving into the centre lane at the time that it commenced its turn into the turn off road.
WHELAN JA:
I agree with Santamaria JA.
SANTAMARIA JA:
Introduction
On 4 October 2012, judgment was given in the Trial Division at Warrnambool in a trial arising out of injuries suffered by the appellant, John Ronald Waterfall, when his motorcycle collided with the motor vehicle driven by the respondent, Stuart Ross Antony.[1] The collision occurred on 14 November 2008, on the Eyre Highway, Madura Pass, Western Australia. At the time of the collision, both the appellant and the respondent were travelling in a westerly direction. The collision occurred when the respondent was towing a caravan and attempting to make a right hand turn off the highway into an intersecting road to a lookout to the north of the highway while the appellant was attempting to overtake the respondent’s vehicle.
[1]Waterfall v Antony [2012] VSC 458 (‘Reasons’).
In the proceeding, the appellant claimed damages from the respondent, alleging that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the respondent. The respondent denied negligence; alternatively, he alleged that, if he was negligent, there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.
As the accident occurred in Western Australia, the law to be applied was that of Western Australia.[2] The claim in negligence was subject to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA).[3]
Continue reading John Ronald Waterfall v Stuart Ross Antony
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- John Ronald Waterfall v Stuart Ross Antony [2014] VSCA 44
- Case
- [2014] VSCA 44
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several key legal issues. The first was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The second issue was whether the defendant breached this duty of care. Thirdly, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if so, to what extent this reduced the damages recoverable. The application of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) was central to resolving these issues, particularly in relation to contributory negligence.
In addressing these issues, the court found that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, which was breached when the defendant failed to observe the plaintiff's motorcycle while making a turn. The court determined that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of this breach. However, the plaintiff was found to be contributorily negligent for not maintaining a proper lookout and not taking sufficient precautions to avoid the collision. The court assessed the plaintiff's contributory negligence at 20%, which reduced the total damages recoverable accordingly.
The court ordered that the defendant pay damages to the plaintiff, reduced by 20% to account for the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The specific amount of damages was not detailed in the summary but was subject to the court's calculation based on the evidence presented. The decision underscored the importance of both parties exercising reasonable care on the road and highlighted the impact of contributory negligence on the quantification of damages.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.