Monten v Strybos & Ors No. DCCIV-97-309, DCCIV-97-308 Judgment No. D3630

[1997] SADC 3630

Court

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Reasons For Decision of His Honour Judge Worthington (ex tempore)

Hearing

03/06/97.

Catchwords

Minor civil review - motor vehicle collision - credibility - application for leave to review refused.

Representation

Applicant MR TERRY MONTEN:
In Person

Respondent MR ARIE STRYBOSS:
In Person

Respondent MRS DENISE STRYBOS:
In Person

Respondent MS NAOMI STRYBOS:
In Person

DCCIV-97-309, DCCIV-97-308

Judgment No. D3630

3 June 1997

(Civil: Application For Review)

MONTEN v STRYBOS & ORS

Civil

Judge Worthington

HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Mr Monten to review the decision of a learned Special Magistrate in a minor civil action in the Magistrates Court on 20 February 1997.It arises out of a motor car accident at Mitchell Park on 13 August 1996.

I take the summary of facts from the judgment of his Honour:

'Mr Monten's case is that Ms Strybos had changed lanes into danger, leaving insufficient room between his vehicle and the rear of her vehicle to enable him to stop safely when an emergency situation arose immediately in front of Ms Strybos' vehicle.

Her case is that she had completed a manoeuvre into the right hand land well before the point of having to brake heavily herself. If Mr Monten was keeping a proper lookout and driving with due care he could have avoided the impact just as she was able to avoid impacting with the rear of the vehicle in front of her.

They are, I think, the respective positions in a nutshell.'

Evidence was given by Ms Naomi Strybos, who was driving the vehicle owned by her parents. She was examined by the learned Special Magistrate and cross-examined at some length by Mr Monten.

Ms Doumanis, a passenger in the vehicle driven by Ms Strybos, gave evidence. She too was examined by the learned Special Magistrate and cross-examined at some length by Mr Monten.Mr Monten gave evidence. Photographs were tendered, and a series of diagrams were presented by Mr Monten to the court.

Insummary, the contradictory versions can be put this way.I do not mean to be exhaustive.

Ms Strybos said in her evidence that she had been travelling in the relevant lane for some distance before being required to brake hard because of a traffic manoeuvre in front of her.

Mr Monten's evidence was to the contrary.In substance, he said that Ms Strybos' car changed lanes quite suddenly and braked without leaving him sufficient time to react, it therefore being unavoidable that he collided with the rear of her vehicle.

Ms Doumanis said that it was her recollection that the car driven by Ms Strybos, had travelled some distance after the lane change, when a car in front braked and manoeuvred in such a way as to require Ms Strybos to brake suddenly.

Ms Strybos stopped her car without hitting anything in front, but Mr Monten's car hit the rear of her car causing it to collide with the car in front of it.

Judgment was entered for Mr and Mrs Strybos for $1725 with costs.A claim by Mr Monten for $831 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The learned Special Magistrate has fairly set out the substance of the evidence in his reasons for judgment, and has not misapprehended any of the evidence before him.His Honour was required to choose between two conflicting versions of what happened, and having formed his impressions of the various witnesses, he has preferred the evidence of Ms Strybosand the evidence of Ms Doumanis, to the extent that it supported Ms Strybos.No error has been demonstrated in his Honour having done so, or in the conclusions he has reached.There is no basis demonstrated to undertake a review.

The application to review is refused.I award costs to Mr and Mrs Strybos in the sum of $50.