JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: LANE -v- JENNIS [2004] WADC 48
CORAM: CRISFORD DCJ
HEARD: 16-20 FEBRUARY 2004
DELIVERED : 17 MARCH 2004
FILE NO/S: CIV 3450 of 2004
BETWEEN: MICHAEL PETER LANE
Plaintiff
AND
CHRISTOPHER EIAN JENNIS
Defendant
Catchwords:
Negligence - Motor vehicle accident - Driver going through red light - Contributory negligence - Quantum
Legislation:
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors Contribution) Act 1947
Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943
Result:
Negligence and contributory negligence established
Damages assessed in the sum of $117,010.45 after reduction of 15 per cent for contributory negligence
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr M E Herron
Defendant: Mr K N Allan
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Dwyer Durack
Defendant: K N Allan
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Hercules Textile Mills Pty Ltd v K & H Textile Engineers Pty Ltd [1995] VLR 310
Sibley v Kais (1967) 118 CLR 424
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
Wilde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997
Case(s) also cited:
Andjelic v Marsland by his Tutor Protective Commissioner of New South Wales (1996) 70 ALJR 435
Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 198 ALR 137
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305
Mickelberg v The Director of the Perth Mint [1986] WAR 365
Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust v Wilson [1976] WAR 175
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Pownall v Conlan Management Pty Ltd (1995) 12 WAR 370
Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642
Redding v Lee (1983) 151 CLR 117
State Government Insurance Commission v Hitchcock, unreported FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970089; 11 March 1997
CRISFORD DCJ: The plaintiff was born on 29 November 1982. He was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 4 November 2000 at which time he was just weeks short of his 18th birthday. He was a student at Trinity College. He was due to sit his first Tertiary Entrance Examination on 6 November 2000.
The accident
The accident occurred at approximately 5.45 pm at the junction of Angove Street and Farmer Street, North Perth, in the State of Western Australia.
The plaintiff was the driver of a white Ford Laser wagon 8PR 690. He was driving in a south westerly direction along Farmer Street with the intention of turning right into Angove Street.
A blue Cortina station wagon 6LE 038 driven by the defendant had been travelling east along Scarborough Beach Road. It drove through traffic lights on Charles Street and continued into Angove Street. This motor vehicle collided with the righthand side of the plaintiff's vehicle as the plaintiff's vehicle moved from the stop sign on Farmer Street.
The plaintiff suffered extensive injuries. He was treated at Royal Perth Hospital for 10 days after being transferred from the accident scene…
Continue reading Lane v Jennis
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lane v Jennis [2004] WADC 48
- Case
- [2004] WADC 48
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the extent of each party's liability for the accident and the appropriate apportionment of damages under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence & Tortfeasors Contribution) Act 1947. The court was required to assess the degree of negligence attributable to each party and determine how this should affect the damages awarded to the plaintiff.
The court found that both parties were at fault, with the defendant being primarily culpable due to running the red light. However, the plaintiff was also negligent for not taking sufficient precautions when approaching the intersection. The court considered the relative importance of the acts of each party in causing the damage, as well as the whole conduct of each negligent party in relation to the circumstances of the accident. Applying the principles from Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Limited, the court apportioned the damages, reducing the plaintiff's claim by 15% due to his contributory negligence. This reduction reflected the degree of negligence attributable to the plaintiff.
The final orders of the court included a reduction of the plaintiff's damages by 15%, with the remaining amount awarded to compensate for the injuries sustained in the accident.
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
Apportioning liability between the parties involves the comparison of the culpability of the parties. In Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Limited (1997) 149 ALR 25‑29 Hayne J said that apportionment legislation such as the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence & Tortfeasors Contribution) Act 1947: "Is predicated upon the findings that a person suffers damage as a result partly of the person's own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons. No doubt the making of the apportionment which the legislation requires involves comparison of the culpability of the parties, ie, the degree to which each has departed upon the standard of what is reasonable, but that is not the only element to be considered. Regard must be had to the relative importance of the acts of the parties in causing the damage and it is the whole conduct of each negligent party in relation to the circumstance of the accident which must be subjective to comparative examination." I have reached the starting point that each party is liable in some way for any damage incurred as a result of the accident. As to a comparison of the culpabilities of the parties, having regard to the relative importance of the acts of the parties in causing any damage, in my opinion, for the reasons given earlier, the defendant is primarily culpable. However, the plaintiff's negligence also played a part in the accident. Pursuant to s 4 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence & Tortfeasors Contribution) Act 1947 it is necessary to reduce the plaintiff's claim "to such an extent as the Court thinks just in accordance with the degree of negligence attributable to the plaintiff". In my view the appropriate reduction is 15 per cent. Prior position of plaintiff Prior to the accident the plaintiff had been actively involved in playing cricket. He had played that game since he was 7 years of age and his whole life had revolved around it. He had played first grade and A grade on a couple of occasions. The evidence of Wayne Andrews, a cricket coach and former Sheffield Shield cricketer, was that the plaintiff was a very promising cricketer. He expected the plaintiff would probably play in representative teams. As a result of the accident happening two days prior to the commencement of his sitting his Tertiary Entrance Examinations the plaintiff was unable to sit any of these exams. His evidence was he had studied extremely hard for them. The plaintiff thereafter sat a university access course at Murdoch University. This entailed four weeks full‑time attendance over what would otherwise have been a holiday period. He successfully completed the course and is presently studying primary school teaching at Murdoch University. Prior to the motor vehicle accident he had been offered a place to study at Edith Cowan University doing an associate degree of Social Science (Police Studies). This was to enable him to attempt to enter the police force via the Police Academy. This course was deferred and the plaintiff is of the view that he could not now enter the course given both physical and psychological difficulties he experiences.