Jones v Farrow - [1991] TASSC 161

Serial No B47/1991
List "B"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Jones v Farrow [1991] TASSC 161; B47/1991

PARTIES:  JONES, Ronald L
  v
  FARROW, P

FILE NO/S:  490A/1990
DELIVERED ON:  6 September 1991
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J
CATCHWORDS

Negligence.

Judgment Number: B47/1991
Number of paragraphs:

Serial No B47/1991
List "B"
File No 490A/1990

RONALD L JONES v P FARROW

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J

6 September 1991

On 20 July 1989 towards midday an accident occurred at the intersection of Derwent Park Road with Benders Drive. The intersection is in the form of a T–junction with Benders Drive ending at Derwent Park Road. It was common ground that prior to the accident the plaintiff was travelling west, in a Mercedes sedan, along Derwent Park Road intending to turn left into Benders Drive, and the defendant was driving his Mazda sedan south along Benders Drive intending to turn right. The collision occurred in Benders Drive some little distance from the intersection. There is little or no common ground beyond the above facts.

The plaintiff's case was that he turned left into the intersection, remained on his correct side of the road and was struck by the defendant's motor vehicle which was, at least, partly on its incorrect side. The defendant's version was that he was driving on his correct side and was struck by the Mercedes in the course of or following an excessive turn into the intersection. The case is essentially one of credibility of witnesses.

The plaintiff gave evidence and called two witnesses, both of whom were passengers in the Mercedes. The defendant gave evidence and also called two witnesses, each claiming to have been in separate vehicles following the defendant and were eye witnesses to the collision.

DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION

Apart from the differences as to the course of the vehicles, there was conflict as to the condition and dimensions of the roadway. The plaintiff and his witnesses maintained that the road was sealed, and that its dimensions were approximate to those illustrated in photographs taken in 1991 and tendered as P1 and D1. All said that the kerbing to the roadway had not been completed. The defendant and his witnesses all maintained that the roadway was unsealed and was in a gravelled and corrugated condition. The date of the accident coincided with the opening of the International Catamaran project. However the evidence of the defence witnesses was contradictory and lacked coherence. Mr Ellis, for example, was not sure if the roadway was sealed at the time of the opening of International Catamarans and believed that the kerbing had been completed before the road was sealed. He also was of the belief that the roadworks were commenced some 200 metres from the intersection and then worked back towards the junction. Mr Purcell believed that there was guttering from outside the Trident factory to the freezer works. In other words, both witnesses seemed to be contending that the construction of the concrete guttering commenced in the middle section…

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 Jones v Farrow

Details

AGLC: Jones v Farrow [1991] TASSC 161
Case: [1991] TASSC 161
Decision Date: 6 September 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v Farrow, the plaintiff, Ronald L Jones, brought an action against the defendant, P Farrow, in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20 July 1989, at the intersection of Derwent Park Road and Benders Drive. Jones was travelling west on Derwent Park Road and intended to turn left into Benders Drive, while Farrow was driving south on Benders Drive intending to turn right. The collision occurred some distance from the intersection, with both parties providing conflicting accounts of the events leading up to the accident. The primary issue before the court was to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to ascertain the facts of the accident, including the condition of the intersection and the movements of the vehicles.

The court was required to decide which version of events was more credible and to determine the circumstances of the accident, including the condition of the intersection and the actions of the parties involved. The court had to assess the evidence provided by both parties and their respective witnesses, considering factors such as the consistency of their accounts and the reliability of their observations. The court also needed to address the condition of the roadway and the intersection at the time of the accident, as well as the actions of the parties immediately following the collision.

Slicer J, in delivering the judgment, found that the plaintiff's version of events was more credible than that of the defendant. The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses over that of the defendant and his witnesses, finding that the Mercedes had turned left into the intersection and remained on its correct side of the road, while the Mazda was partly on its incorrect side. The court accepted that the roadway was sealed but the western kerbing was not in place at the time of the accident, and that there were no road markings. The court found that the collision occurred after the Mercedes had completed its left turn and straightened up, and that the Mazda was on its incorrect side of the roadway due to the inattentiveness of the defendant. The court rejected the defendant's counterclaim and found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The court awarded judgment to the plaintiff in the sum of $10,030.59, the agreed amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Orders