Martin v Reda

[2004] QCA 268

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Martin v Reda & Anor [2004] QCA 268

PARTIES:

JEFFREY JASON MARTIN
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
TONY REDA
(first defendant/first respondent)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966
(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11944 of 2003
DC No 613 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Personal Injury

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

6 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2004

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Atkinson J and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERAL MATTERS – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – IN GENERAL – where appellant sustained injuries in a collision between the appellant’s bicycle and the first respondent’s car – where appellant struck whilst riding bicycle across a pedestrian crossing against a “Don’t Walk” signal – where first respondent driving car in an appropriate and reasonable manner – whether first respondent should have taken precautions to avoid collision – whether first respondent negligent

Cook v Hawes [2002] NSWCA 79, distinguished
Derrick v Cheung (2001) 181 ALR 301, considered
Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v Ergul (1993) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-252, distinguished
Knight v Maclean [2002] NSWCA 314, considered
Stocks v Baldwin (1996) 24 MVR 416, distinguished

COUNSEL:

S Di Carlo for the appellant
S C Williams QC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Baker Johnson Lawyers for the appellant
Jensen McConaghy Solicitors for the respondents

1. JERRARD JA:  The plaintiff Jeffrey Martin has appealed against a decision in the District Court holding that he failed to establish negligence in the first defendant Tony Reda in a collision between Mr Martin’s bicycle and Mr Reda’s motor car on 3 July 1998, and dismissing Mr Martin’s claim for damage for personal injury against Mr Reda as first defendant and Suncorp Metway Insurance as second.  The learned trial judge had held that to find Mr Reda guilty of negligence, on the view of the evidence formed by the judge, would involve a finding of strict liability.  Mr Martin’s counsel argued that the learned judge erred in various conclusions of fact and in law as well.

1. The evidence upon which the learned judge relied, and the judge’s findings of fact, are carefully described in paragraphs [1]-[12] of the reasons for judgment,[1] and I respectfully observe that since I could not improve upon those, I will simply repeat them. They read as follows:

   [1]At AR 696 - 701

“[1] The plaintiff sustained personal injuries on 3^rd July 1998 in a collision between his bicycle and a motor vehicle driven by the first defendant.  That collision occurred at the intersection of Hooker Boulevard and Bermuda Street, both major arterial roadways at the Gold Coast, at 4 pm on a clear fine day.  The traffic was of its normal heavy density and the intersection was controlled by traffic lights.  The road…