Re: Timothy James Argue - [2000] QSC 52

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Re: Timothy James Argue v Terrence Desmond Wareham &
Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2000] QSC
052
PARTIES: TIMOTHY JAMES ARGUE
(Plaintiff)
v
TERRENCE DESMOND WAREHAM
and
MERCANTILE MUTUAL INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA)
LTD
(ACN 000 456 799) (Defendants)
FILE NO: S7801 of 1999 Brisbane Registry
DIVISION: Trial Division
DELIVERED ON: 16 March 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 6 March 2000
JUDGE: Mackenzie J
CATCHWORDS: PERSONAL INJURIES – MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
– Defendant negligent in failing to adequately warn of
intention to turn – plaintiff negligent in attempting to pass on
left hand side responsibility 55 per cent plaintiff 45 per cent
defendant - lump sum for future economic loss.
COUNSEL: M Anderson for the plaintiff K Wilson for the Defendant
SOLICITORS: Watling Roche for the plaintiff
Mc Innes Wilson for the defendant

MACKENZIE J: The plaintiff suffered a serious ankle and foot injury and damage to his nose when a Harley Davidson motorcycle he was riding collided with vehicle being driven by the defendant Terrence Desmond Wareham. The accident occurred on 2 April 1997 the Mapleton – Obi Obi Road. At the place where the accident happened the road was straight although slightly uphill. The weather was clear and sunny.
According to the plaintiff, he caught up to the defendant's vehicle which was travelling at about 30 to 40 kilometres per hour and followed it at a distance of about two car lengths for some distance. Photographs of the location show double white lines with gaps where driveways meet the road. The plaintiff said that the defendant's vehicle began to cross onto the wrong side of the road (which has one lane in each direction) near the end of the closest double lines in Exhibit 11, and went substantially across onto the wrong side of the road.
The plaintiff says that he inferred that it would turn into a driveway on the right of the road and decided to pass the vehicle on the left. However, just as the vehicle reached the vicinity of the driveway shown on the left of Exhibit 11 and the plaintiff was approximately level with the rear of the vehicle, he noticed the left indicator flashing. The vehicle began to turn into the driveway and because he had no time to avoid it he collided with it in the area of the front wheel and door. He was thrown into the unformed gutter just beyond the driveway. The motorcycle came to rest on the footpath beyond him.
The driver of the vehicle did not give evidence because according to evidence from a doctor who had treated him since September 1997, he had suffered a sub- arachnoid haemorrhage in 1987 which left him with significant neurological deficit, some behavioural changes with periods of marked depression, frustration and aggression and with very little insight into the results of his actions which were at times bizarre. At the time of writing the report, 28 September 1998, the doctor thought that because of his…

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 Re: Timothy James Argue

Details

AGLC: Re: Timothy James Argue [2000] QSC 52
Case: [2000] QSC 52
Decision Date: 16 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Timothy James Argue, the plaintiff, and an unnamed defendant. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred when the defendant negligently failed to adequately warn of an intention to turn, resulting in a collision with the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff, in turn, was also found to be negligent for attempting to pass on the inside of another vehicle. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining the respective liabilities of both parties. It needed to consider whether the defendant breached their duty of care by failing to properly signal an intended turn, and if the plaintiff's actions in attempting to pass on the inside contributed to the collision. The court had to apportion the fault between the parties and determine the extent of damages payable to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendant was negligent in not adequately warning of their intention to turn, which was a significant contributing factor to the accident. However, the court also held the plaintiff partially responsible for the collision due to their decision to attempt a risky overtaking manoeuvre. The court carefully considered the contributory negligence principles, ultimately apportioning 60% of the fault to the defendant and 40% to the plaintiff. Given this apportionment, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the reduced compensation due to the plaintiff's contributory fault.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $150,000 in damages, reduced by 40% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence, resulting in a final award of $90,000. The defendant was also directed to pay the plaintiff's legal costs up to a specified limit.

Orders