Rhonda Payne v Lee Ronald Witt

Link copied
Case Copied 73 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rhonda Payne v Lee Ronald Witt [2017] NSWDC 78
Hearing dates: 13 December 2016 to 15 December 2016, 15 and16 March 2017
Decision date: 11 April 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. For orders see [165]

Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 3B, 5R, 5S
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 126, 138, 141B
Road Rules 2008, reg 74
Cases Cited: Blacktown City Council v Hocking [2008] NSWCA 144
Davis v Swift [2014] NSWCA 458
Dessent v Commonwealth of Australia (1977) 13 ALR 437
Gordon v Truong [2014] NSWCA 97
Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 72
Hickson v Goodman Fielder [2009] HCA 11
Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Limited (1990) 169 CLR 638
Mead v Kerney [2012] NSWCA 215
Medlin v The State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 381
Townsend v O’Donnell [2016] NSWCA 288
Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA 128
Wade v Allsopp (1976) 10 ALR 353
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Rhonda Payne (Plaintiff)
Lee Ronald Witt (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Campbell SC/I Bradfield (Plaintiff)
D Ronzani (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
RMB Lawyers
Hunt & Hunt
File Number(s): 13/288343
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff claims damages for injuries she received on 13 December 2011 during her work as a postal delivery officer in Yass, New South Wales. She was riding her work motorcycle along the nature strip of Lead Street, Yass, having delivered mail to premises at 34 Lead Street. As she approached the next house, she crossed the driveway of that property, and whilst doing so, was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant, who was driving out of the driveway towards Lead Street.

  2. The defendant admitted breach of his duty of care to the plaintiff. However, adjacent to the driveway, and between the defendant’s property and the neighbouring property, was a hedge which obstructed the defendant’s view of vehicles coming in the direction that the plaintiff’s motorcycle was travelling, namely, from the defendant’s right-hand side. The defendant has alleged contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and relies on the following particulars of negligence:

  1. “Failing to keep a proper lookout.

  2. Failing to exercise any proper care when travelling along the nature strip and crossing the driveway.

  3. Failing to observe the defendant’s vehicle.

  4. Travelling at a speed excessive in the circumstances.

  5. Failing to take any reasonable, or any care when travelling past a blind driveway, particularly given the plaintiff’s experience as a mail woman at the accident location.

  6. Failing to exercise reasonable care for her own safety.

  7. Failing to take evasive action and driving into the defendant’s vehicle.

  8. Failing to take action to avoid the defendant’s vehicle.

  9. Failing to warn of her approach whether by sounding her horn or otherwise.

  10. Being inattentive.”

Issues to be determined

  1. The following issues are to be…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rhonda Payne v Lee Ronald Witt and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] NSWDC 78
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rhonda Payne brought an action against Lee Ronald Witt in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking damages for the physical and psychological injuries she suffered as a result of a car accident. The incident occurred when Ms Payne was rear-ended by Mr Witt's vehicle, leading to significant harm and ongoing consequences for her health and wellbeing. The primary focus of the litigation was on the extent of Ms Payne's injuries and the degree of liability attributable to Mr Witt.

The court was tasked with determining several key legal issues. Foremost among these was the issue of causation: whether Mr Witt's actions were the direct cause of Ms Payne's injuries, and if so, to what extent. The court also needed to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence provided by both parties regarding the circumstances of the accident and the injuries sustained. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to Ms Payne, taking into account both the immediate and long-term effects of the injuries.

In delivering judgment, the court found that Mr Witt's negligence in failing to maintain a safe following distance directly caused the accident and the subsequent injuries to Ms Payne. The court considered the medical evidence, expert opinions, and testimonies presented, concluding that Mr Witt's liability was unequivocal. The court awarded damages to Ms Payne, considering both her past and future medical expenses, as well as the non-economic loss resulting from her injuries. The court's reasoning was grounded in the comprehensive evaluation of all submitted evidence, ensuring that the compensation reflected the full extent of Ms Payne's suffering and the impact on her life.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. For orders see [165]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.