Rawlings v Cawthorn - [2010] TASFC 8

[2010] TASFC 8

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)

CITATION: Rawlings v Cawthorn [2010] TASFC 8

PARTIES: RAWLINGS, Scott Peter
v

CAWTHORN, Wendy Margaret

FILE NO/S: FCA 19/2010
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Cawthorn v Rawlings [2009] TASSC 119

DELIVERED ON:  17 December 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  6, 7 May 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow, Porter and Wood JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Road accident cases – Actions for negligence – Evidence – Onus of proof and sufficiency of evidence – Rollover of log truck – Collision with car – Cause of collision – Whether truck driver negligent.
Aust Dig Torts [103]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K E Read and R B Webster
             Respondent:  C H Hobbs
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Dobson Mitchell & Allport
             Respondent:  Blissenden Lawyers

Judgment Number: [2010] TASFC 8
Number of paragraphs: 58

Serial No 8/2010
File No FCA 19/2010

SCOTT PETER RAWLINGS
v WENDY MARGARET CAWTHORN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
  BLOW J
  PORTER J
  WOOD J
  17 December 2010

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 8/2010
File No FCA 19/2010

SCOTT PETER RAWLINGS
v WENDY MARGARET CAWTHORN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
  BLOW J
  17 December 2010

This appeal concerns the causation of a fatal log truck accident. It occurred before dawn, at about 4.45am on 30 August 2006, on the Lyell Highway between Granton and New Norfolk. The appellant, Scott Rawlings, was driving a Volvo prime mover towing two trailers, each fully laden with logs, west towards New Norfolk. The respondent's husband, Roger Cawthorn, was driving alone in the other direction in a Pajero four-wheel-drive vehicle. The Pajero came into collision with either the appellant's rear trailer, or with logs that had fallen from it, or both. Mr Cawthorn died at the scene. The respondent, Wendy Cawthorn, sued the appellant for damages. Agreement was reached as to the quantum of damages, but the parties went to trial in relation to questions of liability. Tennent J held that the appellant had driven the truck negligently, and that there had been no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and gave judgment accordingly: Cawthorn v Rawlings [2009] TASSC 119. In this appeal, the appellant contends that her Honour should not have made any finding that he was negligent.

At the trial, the case for the plaintiff (now the respondent) was that the second of the two log trailers (sometimes referred to as "the B-trailer") rolled over onto the Pajero's side of the road, either into the path of the Pajero or on top of it. The case for the defendant (now the appellant) was that the Pajero was driven by the deceased into the outer right rear wheel of the rear trailer, causing that trailer to capsize. The prime mover and the front trailer did not capsize.

The plaintiff's case as to negligence was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The only people present at the time of the collision were the two drivers, one of whom was killed. The defendant was unable 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.

Continue reading Rawlings v Cawthorn

Details

AGLC: Rawlings v Cawthorn [2010] TASFC 8
Case: [2010] TASFC 8
Decision Date: 17 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Rawlings v Cawthorn*, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered an appeal arising from a collision between a log truck and a car. The primary dispute concerned the cause of the collision and whether the driver of the log truck, Mr. Rawlings, had been negligent. The trial judge had found Mr. Rawlings liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that Mr. Rawlings's negligence caused the collision. This involved an examination of the evidence presented at trial, particularly regarding the circumstances of the log truck rolling over and colliding with the plaintiff's vehicle. The court was required to determine if the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr. Rawlings had breached his duty of care to other road users.

The Full Court analysed the evidence, including the physical circumstances of the accident and the testimony of witnesses. It applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the elements of duty of care, breach of duty, and causation. The court considered whether the trial judge had correctly assessed the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that Mr. Rawlings's actions or omissions were the factual and legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court ultimately found that the trial judge's findings of fact and application of the law were sound.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Full Court upholding the trial judge's decision that Mr. Rawlings was negligent and liable for the plaintiff's damages.

Orders