Nominal Defendant v Rowland-Smith

The appeal concerned a negligence claim brought by the Respondent against the Nominal Defendant. The dispute centred on the Trial Judge's findings of fact regarding causation and contributory negligence, and the subsequent assessment of damages. The Respondent, an experienced cyclist, alleged she was forced to take evasive action due to an unidentified negligent driver, resulting in her collision with a parked car. The Appellant challenged the Trial Judge's acceptance of the Respondent's account of the unidentified vehicle and her subsequent actions.

The court was required to determine whether the Trial Judge erred in finding that the Respondent's actions did not interrupt causation or constitute contributory negligence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Respondent, as a highly experienced cyclist, acted reasonably in her response to a perceived risk from an approaching vehicle. Furthermore, the appeal challenged the quantum of damages awarded, with the Appellant arguing that the assessment for non-economic loss was excessive and that a discount for vicissitudes should have been applied differently.

The court upheld the Trial Judge's findings regarding causation and contributory negligence, concluding that the Respondent's actions were a reasonable response to a perceived risk. The court found that the Respondent was not negligent in her attempt to avoid the perceived danger, given the split-second nature of the manoeuvre. However, the court did find that the Trial Judge's assessment of damages for non-economic loss was excessive. The court reduced the award for non-economic loss, finding that the Trial Judge's assessment of 75% of a most extreme case was too high.

Consequently, the verdict and judgment for the Respondent were set aside and a reduced judgment of $776,348.40 was entered in lieu of the original $841,223.40. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal.