Mott v Philip; Prosser v Philip - [2017] QSC 212

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mott v Philip & Ors; Prosser v Philip & Ors [2017] QSC 212

PARTIES:

S53/2015:

ANDREW JAMES MOTT
(Plaintiff)

v

PHEOBE PHILIP
(First Defendant)

And

NRMA INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LTD (ABN 11 000 016 722)

(Second Defendant)

And

MACKAY REGIONAL COUNCIL (ABN 56 240 712 069)

(Third Defendant)

And

DOWNER EDI WORKS PTY LTD (ABN 66 008 709 608)
(Fourth Defendant)

And

BRW TRANSPORT & QUARRIES PTY LTD (ABN 96 085 637 010)
(Fifth Defendant);

S54/2015:

LAUREN MAY PROSSER
(Plaintiff)

v

PHEOBE PHILIP
(First Defendant)

And

NRMA IINSURANCE AUSTRALIA LTD (ABN 11 000 016 722)

(Second Defendant)

And

DOWNER EDI WORKS PTY LTD (ABN 66 008 709 608) (Third Defendant)

And

BRW TRANSPORT & QUARRIES PTY LTD (ABN 96 085 637 010)
(Fourth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S53 of 2015; S54/2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

29 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

30, 31 May 1 June 2017

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for each plaintiff against the second defendant in each proceeding.

The claims against the third and fourth defendants (in 54/15) and the third, fourth and fifth defendants (in 53/15), by each of the plaintiffs and by the first and second defendants are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – LIABILITY – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – ROADWORKS – GENERALLY – where the proceedings involve two matters being heard together – where both proceedings involve a claim for damages for injuries suffered – where the injuries suffered arise out of the same accident – where the subject accident occurred just after a section of roadwork – whether the driver of the oncoming vehicle or the defendants in charge of the roadworks were negligent

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – ADVISORY SIGN – SPEED – where the defendant driver failed to adhere to the advisory speed sign – where the defendant driver remained under the legal speed limit – where it is alleged the defendant driver was travelling too quickly – where it is alleged the defendant driver failed to maintain control over the vehicle – whether the defendant driver was negligent – whether the defendant driver’s negligence solely or partially caused the accident in question

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT – ROADWORKS – where the collision occurred just to the north of a freshly laid section of bitumen and aggregate – where there was loose aggregate on the road surface – whether the aggregate caused the loss of control of the vehicle – whether the car driven by the defendant driver ought to have been able to traverse the roadworks safely

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT – ROADWORKS – SPEED LIMITS AND SIGNAGE – where subsequent to the roadworks being completed a sign indicating loose stones on the road ahead was erected – where a compulsory speed sign limiting speeds to 60kph in the subject area was not erected – where expert evidence emphasised that such signage was essential to alerting road users to…

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 Mott v Philip; Prosser v Philip 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: [2017] QSC 212
Decision Date: 29 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mott v Philip and Prosser v Philip, the plaintiffs, Mott and Prosser, sought damages for injuries sustained in a road accident occurring immediately north of a section of roadworks. The defendants were Philip, the driver of the oncoming vehicle, and several companies responsible for the roadworks. The plaintiffs alleged negligence on the part of both Philip and the roadworks defendants. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues revolved around determining whether Philip was negligent in his driving and whether the roadworks defendants were negligent in managing the roadworks. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the loose aggregate on the road surface caused the loss of control of Philip’s vehicle and if the roadworks should have been managed in a way that allowed for safe traversal. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether the absence of a compulsory 60 kph speed limit sign contributed to the accident.

The court found that the roadworks defendants were negligent in not ensuring the road was safe for traversal, particularly due to the presence of loose aggregate. While Philip was not found to be negligent for adhering to the advisory speed sign, the court held that the absence of a compulsory 60 kph speed limit sign contributed to the accident. The court concluded that had such a sign been present, it might have prompted Philip to slow down sufficiently to maintain control over his vehicle. Therefore, the roadworks defendants were held liable for the accident, while Philip was not found to be negligent.

The court ordered judgment for each plaintiff against the second defendant in each proceeding. The claims against the third and fourth defendants (in 54/15) and the third, fourth, and fifth defendants (in 53/15), by each of the plaintiffs and by the first and second defendants, were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for each plaintiff against the second defendant in each proceeding.

The claims against the third and fourth defendants (in 54/15) and the third, fourth and fifth defendants (in 53/15), by each of the plaintiffs and by the first and second defendants are dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Mott v Philip & Ors; Prosser v Philip & Ors [2017] QSC 212
PARTIES:	S53/2015: ANDREW JAMES MOTT (Plaintiff) v PHEOBE PHILIP (First Defendant) And NRMA INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LTD (ABN 11 000 016 722) (Second Defendant) And MACKAY REGIONAL COUNCIL (ABN 56 240 712 069) (Third Defendant) And DOWNER EDI WORKS PTY LTD (ABN 66 008 709 608) (Fourth Defendant) And BRW TRANSPORT & QUARRIES PTY LTD (ABN 96 085 637 010) (Fifth Defendant); S54/2015: LAUREN MAY PROSSER (Plaintiff) v PHEOBE PHILIP (First Defendant) And NRMA IINSURANCE AUSTRALIA LTD (ABN 11 000 016 722) (Second Defendant) And DOWNER EDI WORKS PTY LTD (ABN 66 008 709 608) (Third Defendant) And BRW TRANSPORT & QUARRIES PTY LTD (ABN 96 085 637 010) (Fourth Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S53 of 2015; S54/2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	29 September 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	30, 31 May 1 June 2017
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	Judgment for each plaintiff against the second defendant in each proceeding. The claims against the third and fourth defendants (in 54/15) and the third, fourth and fifth defendants (in 53/15), by each of the plaintiffs and by the first and second defendants are dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – LIABILITY – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – ROADWORKS – GENERALLY – where the proceedings involve two matters being heard together – where both proceedings involve a claim for damages for injuries suffered – where the injuries suffered arise out of the same accident – where the subject accident occurred just after a section of roadwork – whether the driver of the oncoming vehicle or the defendants in charge of the roadworks were negligent TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – ADVISORY SIGN – SPEED – where the defendant driver failed to adhere to the advisory speed sign – where the defendant driver remained under the legal speed limit – where it is alleged the defendant driver was travelling too quickly – where it is alleged the defendant driver failed to maintain control over the vehicle – whether the defendant driver was negligent – whether the defendant driver’s negligence solely or partially caused the accident in question TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT – ROADWORKS – where the collision occurred just to the north of a freshly laid section of bitumen and aggregate – where there was loose aggregate on the road surface – whether the aggregate caused the loss of control of the vehicle – whether the car driven by the defendant driver ought to have been able to traverse the roadworks safely TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT – ROADWORKS – SPEED LIMITS AND SIGNAGE – where subsequent to the roadworks being completed a sign indicating loose stones on the road ahead was erected – where a compulsory speed sign limiting speeds to 60kph in the subject area was not erected – where expert evidence emphasised that such signage was essential to alerting road users to…