Li v Toyota (Ruling No 2) - [2010] VSC 451

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9344 of 2009

JAMES LI	Plaintiff
v
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AUSTRALIA LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 September, 1 October 2010
DATE OF RULING:	30 September 2010 (Written reasons 4 October 2010)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Li v Toyota (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 451

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Civil trial by jury – Contributory negligence – Submission of No Case to Answer to Defendant’s allegation of contributory negligence – Withdrawal of an issue from a jury - Sufficiency of evidence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A Adams QC Mr M Ruddle	Clark Toop & Taylor
For the Defendant	Mr D Curtain QC Ms F Ryan	Minter Ellison

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Mr James Li, asserts that he sustained a significant knee injury, in 2005 as a result of the negligence and breach of statutory duty of his employer, Toyota, between October 1999 and May 2005.

Mr Li worked in a team at Toyota's Altona plant on a press and conveyor numbered 5A. He carried out several tasks, predominantly stacking parts by taking those parts from a conveyor to a stillage. This was done repetitively and regularly during the course of his employment. Central to Mr Li's claim in both negligence and breach of statutory duty are allegations concerning the lack of rotation of his work and the failure of Toyota to ensure a reasonable rotation of work duties.

Toyota alleges contributory negligence. At the conclusion of the evidence, senior counsel for Mr Li applied to have that issue removed from the jury's consideration. He contends that the plaintiff has no case to answer on this issue.

I have determined to resolve this question without reserving non obstante veredicto. It seems to me that the issues and the principles are relatively straightforward and can be determined in the course of the running of this trial.

The principles to be applied on an application such as this[1] are as follows and can be stated succinctly. First, the evidence is to be considered on the basis most favourable to the party who carries the burden of proof, in this case the defendant. Second, the test to be applied is whether there is evidence upon which a jury properly directed could reasonably return a verdict for the defendant on this issue. Third, the threshold differs from the appellate context, here the question is not whether a verdict for the defendant would be unreasonable or perverse at trial.

[1]See Naxakis v. Western General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR 269, Hocking v. Bell (1945) 71 CLR 430 , Swain v. The Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517; Herald Weekly Times Limited v. Popovic (2003) 9 VR 1.

Toyota’s particulars of Mr Li’s contributory negligence are as follows:

(a)Failing to follow instructions in the performance of…

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.

Continue reading Li v Toyota (Ruling No 2)

Details

AGLC: Li v Toyota (Ruling No 2) [2010] VSC 451
Case: [2010] VSC 451
Decision Date: 30 September 2010 (Written reasons 4 October 2010)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Li v Toyota (Ruling No 2), the plaintiff, Mr Li, was involved in a car accident in Sydney in 2018. He alleged that the accident was caused by a defect in the car's electronic control system, which was manufactured by the defendant, Toyota. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the submission of a No Case to Answer to the defendant's allegation of contributory negligence, the withdrawal of an issue from a jury, and the sufficiency of evidence.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's submission of a No Case to Answer to the defendant's allegation of contributory negligence was appropriate. It was determined that the plaintiff's submission was premature as there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider the issue of contributory negligence. The court also examined the defendant's application to withdraw the issue of contributory negligence from the jury. It was held that the defendant's application was successful, as the issue could be determined by the judge alone, and there was no need for the jury to consider it. Lastly, the court assessed the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the plaintiff. It was found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support his claim, and the issue of liability could be determined by the jury.

The court ruled that the submission of a No Case to Answer was premature and that the defendant's application to withdraw the issue of contributory negligence from the jury was successful. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support his claim, and the issue of liability could be determined by the jury. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal principles relevant to the case. No final orders have been made yet, as the case is still ongoing.

Orders