Koropachinsky v Wang

[2018] NSWDC 318

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Koropachinsky v Wang [2018] NSWDC 318
Hearing dates:	20 and 29 August 2018
Date of orders:	28 September 2018
Decision date:	28 September 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $178,993.49. (2) Defendants pay plaintiff’s costs. (3) Liberty to restore in relation to interest and costs. (4) Exhibits retained for 28 days.
Catchwords:	MOTOR VEHICLE – claim for $178,993.49 for damage to Aston Martin Vanquish – vicarious liability – contributory negligence
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5D Employees Liability Act 1991 (NSW), s 3(1) Road Rules 2014 (NSW), rr 37, 38, 132(2A) and 198(2)
Cases Cited:	Baxter v Obacelo (2001) 205 CLR 635 Christmas v Nicol Bros Pty Ltd (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 317 Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co of Australia Ltd (1931) 46 CLR 41 Raper by her tutor Raper v Bowden (2016) 76 MVR 369 Scott v Davis [2000] HCA 52; 204 CLR 333 Soblusky v Egan (1960) 103 CLR 215
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Plaintiff: Anna Koropachinsky First Defendant: Congwei Wang Second Defendant: Sunshine Solar & Electrical Pty Ltd
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr S Glascott Defendant: Mr B Y Chi (solicitor)   Solicitors: Plaintiff: Cantwell Lawyers Defendant: Fusion Legal
File Number(s):	2017/74662
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

Introduction

1. On 11 October 2016, Mrs Anna Koropachinsky, the plaintiff in these proceedings, was driving her 2015 Aston Martin Vanquish coupe along Victoria Road, Bellevue Hill. As she rounded the curve outside number 42 on Victoria Road, the defendant performed a U-turn across the double lines in order to get to the opposite side of the road. She immediately reduced her speed to less than 15km/hr and veered to the right to avoid the defendant’s vehicle.

2. As is explained in the expert evidence set out in more detail below, while this manoeuvre would have been sufficient to avoid a collision if the defendant had been pulling out into the traffic from his position parked by the road (Exhibit C, question 10), the defendant’s passage across the double unbroken lines resulted in a collision where the agreed value for the damage to the plaintiff’s Aston Martin is $178,993.49.

The facts in dispute

3. The factual evidence is largely agreed:

1. The first defendant was an employee of the second defendant, a company of which he was both a director and shareholder (Exhibit A; T 21), and was sued in his capacity as the driver and agent of the second defendant. Those facts are not in dispute.

2. The evidence was in limited compass. Both the plaintiff and first defendant gave evidence, but cross-examination of the plaintiff was of a brief nature.

3. There was unanimity on the essential issues in the expert evidence given by Mr Grant Johnston of Unisearch (for the defendant) and Dr George Rechnitzer, which was given after a conclave report was prepared. The principal issue upon which they did not agree was the distance at which the…