JUDGE:	TSALAMANDRIS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 & 16 March 2022
LAST WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED:	22 March 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 April 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Reynolds v Patel
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 211

---

NEGLIGENCE – Transport accident – Negligence – Duty owed to other road users – Whether duty applies to passing cyclist – Breach of duty – Driver did not give evidence – Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63 – Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 – Neill v NSW Fresh Food & Ice Pty Ltd (1963) 108 CLR 362 – Brown v Roberts [1965] 1 QB 1 – Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 – Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 – Marten v Harrison & Anor (1988) 7 MVR 542 – Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330 – Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 – Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2004) 220 CLR 517 – Trentelman v Roberts & Anor [2004] ACTSC 39 – Manley v Alexander (2005) 223 ALR 228 – Hawthorne v Hillcoat (2008) 51 MVR 523 – Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstrain (2009) 237 CLR 215 – Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 – King v Philcox (2015) 255 CLR 304 – Homsi v Homsi (2016) 51 VR 694 – Greater Shepparton City Council v Clarke (2017) 56 VR – R v AB (No. 2) (2018) 97 NSWLR 1031.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Tobin SC with Mr S Jurica	Slater & Gordon
For the Defendant	Ms B Myers SC with Ms E Golshtein	Transport Accident Commission

HER HONOUR:

On 20 January 2017 at approximately 6:30pm, Mr Benjamin Reynolds was cycling from Crown Casino, where he worked as a pastry chef, to his home in Richmond. Mr Reynolds had crossed over the Swan Street bridge and was cycling in the bike lane in an easterly direction along Olympic Boulevard. It was at the time of the Australian Open tennis tournament and the traffic around Melbourne Park, in particular Rod Laver Arena, was congested. Mr Reynolds said that, without warning, the car door of a stationary vehicle to his right-hand side opened into the bike lane and blocked his path such that he was unable to avoid an accident (‘the accident’). As a result of the accident Mr Reynolds was thrown from his bike and suffered injuries to his hands and left wrist.

The car door which struck Mr Reynolds was opened by Mr Stanley Luna as he alighted from the back passenger seat of the vehicle — an Uber driven by the defendant, Mr Anilkumar Patel.

On the first day of the trial, the parties agreed to the quantum of Mr Reynolds’…

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 Reynolds v Patel

Details

AGLC: Reynolds v Patel [2022] VSC 211
Case: [2022] VSC 211
Decision Date: 29 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim for damages following a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist. The plaintiff, Mr Reynolds, alleged that the defendant, Ms Patel, was negligent in the operation of her motor vehicle, resulting in the accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue was whether the driver owed a duty of care to the cyclist. Mr Reynolds argued that Ms Patel was negligent in failing to observe the cyclist and avoid the collision. The court also needed to determine if Ms Patel breached that duty and if such a breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The absence of Ms Patel's evidence further complicated the determination of her negligence.

The court examined relevant case law to determine the scope of the driver's duty of care to other road users, including cyclists. It concluded that a driver must exercise reasonable care to avoid collisions with other road users. Given that Ms Patel did not give evidence, the court inferred her negligence from the circumstances of the accident and the plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence. The court held that Ms Patel was liable for the injuries sustained by Mr Reynolds due to her breach of the duty of care.

The court ordered Ms Patel to pay damages to Mr Reynolds for his injuries and losses resulting from the accident. The specific amount of damages was to be assessed in a subsequent proceeding.

Orders