Pankelis v Frankcombe - [1988] TASSC 20

TASSC A5/1988

CITATION: Pankelis v Frankcombe [1988] TASSC 20; A5/1988

PARTIES:  PANKELIS
  v
  FRANKCOMBE

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 20/1987
DELIVERED ON:  10 March 1988
JUDGMENT OF:  Neasey J

Judgment Number: 5/1988
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 5/1988
List "A"
File No LCA 20/1987

PANKELIS v FRANKCOMBE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NEASEY J

10 March 1988

This appeal from a Court of Requests decision concerns a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 9 September 1985 at the junction made by a road known as the Nook Road with the Sheffield Main Road in Northern Tasmania. The junction makes a "Y" formation, in that the Nook Road joins the southbound lane of the two lane Sheffield Main Road at an acute angle. The appellant Pankelis was travelling in a Holden sedan car in a north–westerly direction, on Nook Road, approaching the junction, and intending to continue in a northerly direction along the Main Road. There was a give–way sign where the Nook Road joins the Main Road, and the appellant was required to give way to traffic proceeding south on the Main Road which the respondent, Frankcombe, was doing. He was driving a Suzuki flat tray truck. Each vehicle was carrying one passenger. After the appellant entered the junction there was a collision between the two vehicles. The passenger in the appellant‘s car subsequently died from injuries received.

When the vehicles came to rest after impact, the appellant’s vehicle was on the edge of the northbound lane of the Main Road, facing in a north easterly direction, and the respondent‘s vehicle was straddling the centre line, facing north west, and having about two thirds of its length on the south bound lane of the Main Road. Photographs taken of the vehicles in static position after the accident show that the right front of the appellant’s vehicle and the left front of the respondent's were only two or three feet apart, but the actual distance is not specified in the evidence. Both vehicles were extensively damaged. The appellant sued the respondent for damages, in a sum slightly less than $5,000.

At the hearing, the only person who gave evidence about the circumstances of the accident was the appellant. He said he saw the respondent’s vehicle approaching the junction from the north at a very rapid speed, just before he stopped at the junction line. He looked left, and then right again. He saw the other vehicle at what he thought was an ample distance away for him to cross safely into the northbound lane of the Main Road, and he commenced to do so. He would have had plenty of time to cross the southbound lane before the respondent's vehicle arrived, he said, but as he was crossing, the respondent’s vehicle commenced to move across towards the northbound lane – ie, towards its right and to its incorrect side. The respondent's vehicle continued in that course, crossed over to the northbound lane and collided with…

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.

Continue reading Pankelis v Frankcombe

Details

AGLC: Pankelis v Frankcombe [1988] TASSC 20
Case: [1988] TASSC 20
Decision Date: 10 March 1988

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pankelis v Frankcombe was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania in 1988. The case involved a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 9 September 1985, at the junction of the Nook Road and the Sheffield Main Road in Northern Tasmania. The appellant, Pankelis, sued the respondent, Frankcombe, for damages after a collision between their vehicles. The passenger in Pankelis' car died from injuries received in the accident. The Supreme Court of Tasmania heard an appeal from the Court of Requests decision, which found in favor of the respondent.

The legal issues in the case centered on the admissibility of expert opinion evidence given by Constable Flude, who attended the scene of the accident and provided a sketch plan and oral testimony on the estimated point of impact between the vehicles. Pankelis argued that the investigation of vehicle accidents is not an organised branch of knowledge, and therefore Constable Flude's opinion evidence should not have been admitted. Even if it was considered an organised branch of knowledge, Pankelis further argued that Constable Flude's experience and training were not sufficient to qualify him as an expert witness. Additionally, Pankelis claimed that the evidence was inadmissible because the approximate location of the point of impact could have been determined by the trier of fact from common knowledge and experience, without the need for expert testimony.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania agreed with Pankelis' arguments and held that the evidence should not have been admitted. The court found that there was no evidence to establish that vehicle accident investigation is an organised branch of knowledge, and that Constable Flude's experience and training did not qualify him as an expert. Furthermore, the court considered that the approximate location of the point of impact could be determined by the trier of fact from common knowledge and experience, and thus expert evidence was unnecessary and inadmissible. The court also noted that the rejection of uncontradicted oral evidence requires a reasonable explanation, and that the issue of the competence of the respondent's daughter to give evidence might have been more carefully examined.

As a result of the court's findings, the appeal succeeded, and the case was ordered to be retried before another Commissioner of the Court of Requests. The Supreme Court of Tasmania's judgment highlights the importance of the proper admission of expert opinion evidence and the need for careful consideration of the trier of fact's ability to determine certain issues from common knowledge and experience.

Orders