Legal Research
Cases
Rayner v Cochrane

Rayner v Cochrane

Case [2011] TASSC 45 31 August 2011

Negligence

Compensatory Damages

Apportionment of Damages

Pedestrian Accidents

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

[2011] TASSC 45

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Rayner v Cochrane [2011] TASSC 45

PARTIES:RAYNER, Jayden Floyd
an infant by his Litigaiton Guardian

RAYNER, Jodie Kay
v
COCHRANE, Rachel Jane

FILE NO/S:  934/2008
DELIVERED ON:  31 August 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  16 August 2011
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Road accident cases – Actions for negligence – Apportionment of damages – Pedestrian accidents – Pedestrian ran into side of vehicle.

Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), ss11, 12, 13 and 14.
Knight v Maclean [2002] NSWCA 314, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  K E Read
             Defendant:  B R McTaggart
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Murdoch Clarke
             Defendant:  Page Seager

Judgment Number: [2011] TASSC 45
Number of paragraphs: 21

Serial No 45/2011
File No 934/2008

JAYDEN FLOYD RAYNER an infant by his Litigation Guardian
JODIE KAY RAYNER v RACHEL JANE COCHRANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

31 August 2011

Jayden Rayner, suffered personal injuries when he ran into the side of a passing vehicle driven by Rachel Cochrane. The issue before me is whether she is liable for his injuries, and, if so, whether and to what extent he was contributorily negligent.

The accident occurred at about 3.50pm on Thursday, 3 July 2008 about mid-way along a section of Tiger Head Road, Dodges Ferry, between its intersection with Lourah Street and the cul-de-sac at its western end. In the course of the hearing, this section of the road was dealt with as if it ran from east to west.

The following is a plan of the area in the immediate vicinity of the accident. An endeavour has been made to draw the plan to scale based on dimensions agreed to by the parties. There was no agreement between the parties on the point of impact or the position of the defendant's vehicle at that time. Their position on the plan reflects my findings in relation to these matters.

At the time of the accident Jayden was 12 years of age. He ran from the entrance of the driveway to 39 Tiger Head Road onto that road. His intended destination was his home at 37 Tiger Head Road. From this, and his and the defendant's failure to see one another any earlier than they did, I conclude that he was on the eastern side of the driveway entrance, near the boundary fence, as he left the driveway. I also infer that he was bearing a little to his left as he ran out. I conclude that the point of impact was in about the centre of the travelled portion of the road, a little east of the projected line of the boundary fence between 39 and 37 Tiger Head Road.

Shortly prior to the collision, the defendant had collected her three children from a bus-stop in Carlton Beach Road, they having returned from school in Richmond. She was driving west along Tiger Head Road to her home near the end of the road. Her vehicle was a…

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 Rayner v Cochrane

Details

AGLC: Rayner v Cochrane [2011] TASSC 45
Case: [2011] TASSC 45
Decision Date: 31 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rayner v Cochrane involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Rayner, and the defendant, Cochrane, arising from a road accident. Rayner claimed damages for injuries sustained when he collided with the side of Cochrane’s vehicle while crossing the road. The dispute centred on the apportionment of damages for the accident, with Cochrane arguing that Rayner was partially at fault for not taking reasonable care for his own safety. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine the extent to which Rayner was contributorially negligent and whether this should reduce the damages recoverable from Cochrane. The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the accident and, if so, to what extent they should mitigate the damages awarded. The court needed to balance the principles of contributory negligence against the overall responsibility of the defendant in ensuring the safety of pedestrians.

The court found that Rayner had indeed contributed to the accident by not paying sufficient attention to his surroundings while crossing the road, but it was primarily the defendant’s responsibility to avoid hitting pedestrians. The court concluded that Rayner’s contributory negligence was 25%, resulting in a proportionate reduction of the damages. Consequently, the court ordered that Cochrane was liable to pay 75% of the total damages awarded to Rayner, reflecting the shared responsibility for the accident.

Orders