Land v Dhaliwal

[2012] QSC 360

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Land v Dhaliwal & Anor [2012] QSC 360

PARTIES:

GARY PETER LAND
(plaintiff)
v
BIRKAMJIT SINGH DHALIWAL
(first defendant)
and
QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 6577 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

16 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

WRITTEN SUBMISIONS:

2 April, 3 April and 4 April 2012

4 April 2012

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDERS:

1.    There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $382, 690.

2.    I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NELIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where plaintiff riding bicycle – where defendant driving taxi – where defendant veered taxi into path of plaintiff and stopped – where plaintiff unable to avoid taxi – where collision between taxi and plaintiff occurred – where plaintiff suffered personal injury – where defendants liability for incident admitted on pleadings – where defendants claim of contributory negligence abandoned at trial – what the appropriate quantum of damages is

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 51, 59, 61
Civil liability Regulation 2003 (Qld), sch 3, 7

Bezant v Davis [2010] QSC 229
Collins v Carey & Anor[2002] QSC 398
CSR Limited v Eddy (2005-2006) 226 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 64
Hunt v Lemura & Anor[2011] QSC 378
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138; [1999] HCA 47
Kriz v King (2006) 1 Qd R 327; [2006] QCA 351
Leonardi v Payne & Anor [2009] QSC 382
Wilson v McLeay (1961) 106 CLR 523; [1961] HCA 56

COUNSEL:

J W Lee for the plaintiff
R C Morton for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Craig Ray and Associates for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendants

Introduction

1. On 1 July 2007, the plaintiff was riding his bicycle in an easterly direction along Airport Drive, Eagle Farm.  He was riding at the head of a small group of cyclists.  The others were roughly in single file behind him.  They were riding their bicycles on the part of the roadway adjacent to the left hand shoulder of the road.  At about 8.10 am, the first defendant, who was driving a taxi, veered into the lane directly in front of the plaintiff and stopped.  This occurred almost directly in front of where the plaintiff was riding his bicycle, and the plaintiff was unable to avoid the taxi parked in front of him.  The plaintiff collided with the rear of the taxi and suffered personal injury as a consequence. 

1. The first defendant’s liability for the incident was admitted on the pleadings.  When the matter came on for trial, a claim of contributory negligence by the plaintiff was initially maintained on behalf of the defendants.  In closing submissions, however, counsel for the defendants quite properly conceded that, in light of the evidence at trial, there was no basis for a finding of contributory negligence against the plaintiff, and I was not asked to…