Olgun v Kilic

Case [2019] NSWDC 235


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Olgun v Kilic [2019] NSWDC 235
Hearing dates: 29 – 31 May 2019
Date of orders: 06 June 2019
Decision date: 06 June 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 195.

Catchwords:

TORTS – Motor Vehicle Accidents – “blameless accident” – test for causation once fault is deemed.

  DAMAGES – past out-of-pocket expenses – past loss of earning capacity – future out-of-pocket expenses – future loss of earning capacity – future commercial care.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13
Amaca Pty Ltd v Latz [2018] HCA 22
Avopiling Pty Ltd v Bosevski [2018] NSWCA 146
Civil Liability Act: Fairall v Hobbs [2017] NSWCA 82
Coles Supermarket v Haleluka [2012] NSWCA 343
CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1
DC v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 198
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 143
Matchan v Lyons [2003] NSWCA 384
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Miller v Galderisi [2009] NSWCA 353
Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd (2008) 172 IR 453
Ruby v Marsh (1975) 132 CLR 642
Seltsam v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208
State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mr Olgun (Plaintiff)
Mr Kilic (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Daley (Plaintiff)
Mr R Cavanagh SC (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
McCabe Curwood (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2017/145701
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

BACKGROUND

  1. On 2 May 2015 the plaintiff was a front seat passenger in a Honda Civic Hatchback motor vehicle which was driving back to Sydney from Wollongong late in the afternoon and early evening. The car was driven by the defendant, a friend of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, the defendant and the defendant’s son (a back seat passenger in the same car) had enjoyed a day of leisure, spent mainly fishing, in Wollongong.

  2. At a point along Heathcote Road, close to the intersection with the Princess Highway, the defendant lost control of the vehicle so that it collided with rocks on the opposite side of the carriageway.

  3. By this proceeding, the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries against the defendant driver. On the first day of the trial, the defendant admitted liability, on the sole basis that this was a ‘blameless accident’ (within the meaning of s 7A of the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (the Act). The defendant does not admit that the plaintiff suffered injury or is entitled to damages. The general issue, accordingly, concerns the assessment of damages.

  4. In his opening, Counsel for the plaintiff indicated that the plaintiff continues to suffer pain in his neck and both hips. The plaintiff brings claims for:

  1. past out-of-pocket expenses;

  2. past wage loss (for the period June…

Continue reading Olgun v Kilic

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Olgun v Kilic [2019] NSWDC 235
Case
[2019] NSWDC 235
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Olgun v Kilic dealt with a dispute between the plaintiff, Olgun, and the defendant, Kilic, arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained in the accident. The dispute centred on the question of causation and the apportionment of damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue was determining whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the accident and, if so, what damages should be awarded. The court had to decide whether the accident was a "blameless accident" and, if it was, how to assess causation and damages. The court also had to consider the extent of the plaintiff's past and future out-of-pocket expenses, loss of earning capacity, and future commercial care needs.

The court held that the accident was a blameless one, meaning neither party was at fault. The court adopted a causation test that required the plaintiff to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident caused their injuries. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied this test. Regarding damages, the court awarded the plaintiff compensation for past out-of-pocket expenses, past loss of earning capacity, future out-of-pocket expenses, future loss of earning capacity, and future commercial care. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties before making its decision.

The court made several orders, including that the defendant pay the plaintiff compensation for the damages outlined above. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's legal costs. The specific amounts of compensation and costs were detailed in the court's judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 195.

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.