Law v Pinkerton and Anor - [2002] VSCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 7335 of 2000

ANDREW LAW
	Appellant
v.
LEON PINKERTON and PAUL RODDA
	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, CALLAWAY and BATT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 March 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 20

---

NEGLIGENCE – Contributory negligence – Judge’s charge to jury – Obligation to relate law to evidence – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D.E. Curtain, Q.C. Mr D.G. Brookes	Holding Redlich
For the Respondents	Mr R.P. Gorton, Q.C. Ms A. Duggan	TAC Law Pty. Ltd.

CHARLES, J.A.:

This action was commenced by writ on 18 June 1999 in the County Court at Melbourne, and came on for hearing before a judge and jury on 2 October 2000. The plaintiff, Andrew Law, now the appellant, claimed damages from the respondent defendants for personal injuries he suffered after a motor vehicle accident on 2 June 1990, which he alleged had occurred as a result of the negligence of either or both of the defendants in the driving of their respective motor vehicles.

It was not in dispute that a car being driven by the first defendant, Leon Pinkerton, struck Law in Thompsons Road, Bulleen, when he was close to the nearside front of a taxi which had stopped in the middle of the road and which was being driven by the second defendant, Paul Rodda. Law was seriously injured, suffering a fractured femur and injuries to his right leg, hip and knee. Law had ongoing difficulties associated with his injuries, particularly with respect to his employment. The defendants admitted the accident but denied negligence on their part and alternatively alleged contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

After a trial lasting a week the judge put various agreed questions to the jury, and the jury found in answer to the first two questions that the plaintiff had failed to prove negligence on the part of either defendant. Judgment was accordingly entered for the defendants on 9 October.

The plaintiff now appeals to this Court on a number of grounds, claiming that the judge erred in his charge to the jury by failing to relate his summary of the evidence to the legal issues to be tried; and that the judge should have directed the jury that the relevant evidence capable of establishing negligence against Pinkerton was (a) the opportunity which he had to observe the plaintiff on the roadway; and (b) the speed of impact being such that the plaintiff was propelled through the air and came to rest some 15 metres away. A further ground claims that the judge misdirected the jury in his statement of the fundamental issue in the case. A ground based on the first defendant’s failure to adduce evidence as to the nature and extent of the damage to his vehicle was abandoned during the hearing of the appeal. Leave was granted by the Court to add an additional ground claiming that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Law v Pinkerton and Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] VSCA 20
Decision Date: 8 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Law v Pinkerton and Anor was heard before the High Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Law, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, claiming that the defendant drivers, Pinkerton and another, were negligent. Law alleged that the negligence of Pinkerton and the second driver caused the accident, leading to his injuries. The case progressed to trial where the jury returned a verdict in favour of Law, but also found that Law himself was contributorily negligent. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge properly charged the jury on the principles of contributory negligence and whether the judge adequately related the legal principles to the evidence presented.

The court examined whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury on the concept of contributory negligence and whether the judge had sufficiently related the law to the specific evidence. The court considered whether the trial judge's charge was sufficient to ensure the jury could properly apply the law of contributory negligence to the facts of the case. The central question was whether the judge's explanation of the law was clear and whether it enabled the jury to make an informed decision on the issue of contributory negligence.

The court found that the trial judge had adequately discharged their obligation to relate the law to the evidence. The judge's charge to the jury was comprehensive and appropriate, providing clear instructions on the legal principles relevant to contributory negligence. The court concluded that the judge's explanation of the law was sufficient and correctly applied to the facts of the case, ensuring the jury could make a well-informed decision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the jury's verdict and the findings of contributory negligence.

Orders