SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
PARTIES:
RICKY LEE LAWES
(plaintiff)
v
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(defendant)FILE NO/S:
BS1930 of 2006
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
24 April 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5-7 March 2007
JUDGE:
Byrne J
ORDER:
That the plaintiff recover from the defendant $212,000.00
CATCHWORDS:
INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY INSURANCE LEGISLATION – WHERE IDENTITY OF VEHICLE CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED – QUEENSLAND – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff’s motorcycle collided with a horse on a highway – whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by an unidentified motor vehicle – whether the Nominal Defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) statutory policy
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – FAILURE TO GIVE WARNINGS OR SIGNALS – GENERALLY – whether placing an obstruction on a highway and leaving the obstruction there in a dangerous situation constitutes negligence – whether failing to warn road users of the dangerous obstruction on a highway constitutes a breach of duty
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568, considered
Evans v Transit Australia Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 30, cited
Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd v Zhang [2007] HCA 15, cited
Hardy v Brooks 118 SE 2d 492 (Ga Ct App 1961), cited
Inasmuch Community Inc v Bright (2006) 45 MVR 234, cited
Insurance Commission of Western Australia v Container Handlers Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 89, cited
Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 80 ALJR 688, cited
Nominal Defendant v Puglisi (1984) 58 ALJR 474, cited
Pennington v Wolfe 262 F Supp 2d 1254 (D Kan 2003), cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, cited
Purt v State of Queensland [2004] 1 Qd R 663, cited
Raschke v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2005] 2 Qd R 549, considered
Schicker v Leick 162 NW 2d 66 (Wis 1968), cited
Simonsen v Thorin 234 NW 628, 629 (Neb 1931), cited
Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Office (Qld) (1989) 167 CLR 45, applied
Ticehurst v Skeen (1986) 3 MVR 307, followedCOUNSEL:
R J Douglas SC, with him P B de Plater, for the plaintiff
R B Dickson for the defendantSOLICITORS:
McNamara Garrahy Lawyers for the plaintiff
Broadley Rees Lawyers for the defendant
The plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was riding struck a horse. The question is whether the Nominal Defendant is liable to compensate him under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (“the Act”) statutory policy.
Horse struck
The incident occurred at about 8.40 pm on Friday, 14 March 2003 on the Gympie-Tin Can Bay…
Continue reading Lawes v Nominal Defendant
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lawes v Nominal Defendant [2007] QSC 92
- Case
- [2007] QSC 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by an unidentified motor vehicle. It was noted that the evidence suggested that the horse had been placed on the highway by a vehicle, but the identity of the vehicle could not be determined. The court examined the circumstances of the accident and the lack of evidence regarding the vehicle responsible for placing the horse on the highway. The court determined that there was a sufficient basis to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by an unidentified motor vehicle. The court also considered whether the Nominal Defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiff under the statutory policy provided by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The court found that the statutory policy applied to the situation and that the Nominal Defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiff.
In its judgment, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Lawes, and ordered the defendant to pay $212,000.00 in compensation. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by an unidentified motor vehicle and that the Nominal Defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiff under the statutory policy provided by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The court further found that placing an obstruction on a highway and leaving it there in a dangerous situation constitutes negligence, and failing to warn road users of the dangerous obstruction on a highway constitutes a breach of duty. The court's decision emphasised the importance of road safety and the responsibility of drivers to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to other road users.
Orders
Orders of the court
That the plaintiff recover from the defendant $212,000.00
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
Full text does not contain this section.