Richards v Picco - [2000] NSWCA 35

CITATION: Richards v Picco [2000] NSWCA 35

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40378/98

HEARING DATE(S): 15 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 March 2000

PARTIES :

Appellant: Jennifer Richards
Respondent: Catherine Picco

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Meagher JA at 2; Heydon JA at 12

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 5336/97

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Puckeridge J

COUNSEL: Appellant: Mr JD Hislop QC, P. O'Conner
Respondent: Mr B Murray QC, R Hanrahan

SOLICITORS: Appellant: McCulloch & Buggy
Respondent: Allen, Allen & Hemsley

CATCHWORDS: Motor vehicle accident - Resulting in death - Negligence contrbutory of deceased - assessment of damages

LEGISLATION CITED: Suitors' Fund Act

CASES CITED:
Cocks v Sheppard (1978) 25 ALR 325

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed.; 2. Verdict and judgment for the respondent set aside; 3. Verdict and judgment for the appellant substituted.; 4. Cross-appeal dismissed.; 5. The respondent pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal and the costs in the court below, and to have a certifcate under the Suitors' Fund Act if qualified.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40378/98
MASON P
MEAGHER JA
HEYDON JA
10 MARCH 20000

JENNIFER RICHARDS v CATHERINE PICCO
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT-RESULTING IN DEATH-NEGLIGENCE-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF DECEASED-ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
Facts: The respondent’s husband was killed in a motor vehicle collision. The accident occurred on a country highway outside Coonabarabran, when the deceased’s motorcycle collided with the appellant’s utility. Both parties were travelling in the same direction, and when the appellant attempted a right hand turn, the deceased failed to decelerate fast enough to avoid collision.
The trial judge found in favour of the respondent. Although contributory negligence was assessed at 35% to the deceased, his Honour held that the appellant failed to appreciate the speed with which the motorcycle was approaching and so did not take the necessary precautions to avoid collision.
On appeal there were three issues raised:
1. Whether the appellant was negligent in failing to pay proper attention to the approaching cyclist.
2. Whether the trial judge’s assessment of contributory negligence was inadequate.
3. There was a cross-appeal on damages.
Held: (per Mason P, Heydon JA, Meagher JA dissenting): The circumstances surrounding the accident indicated the cause of death was excessive speed by the deceased, not the appellant’s negligence. The appellant checked the position of the motorcycle several times before she indicated her intention to turn right, and immediately after putting on the indicator. After this time she was entitled to assume the deceased would respond to her indication of intention.

ORDERS
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Verdict and judgment for the respondent set aside.
3. Verdict and judgment for the appellant substituted.
4. Cross-appeal dismissed.
5. Respondent to pay the cost of the appeal and cross-appeal, and costs in the court below, and have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act if qualified.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40378/98
MASON P
MEAGHER JA
HEYDON JA
10 MARCH 2000

JENNIFER RICHARDS v…

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 Richards v Picco

Details

AGLC: Richards v Picco [2000] NSWCA 35
Case: [2000] NSWCA 35
Decision Date: 10 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Richards v Picco* concerned a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of the deceased. The proceedings were heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, with Mason P, Meagher and Heydon JJA presiding. The central dispute revolved around the assessment of damages, specifically in light of allegations of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The primary legal issues before the court were to determine the extent to which the deceased's own conduct contributed to the accident and, consequently, how this contributory negligence should affect the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff. The court was required to assess the apportionment of blame between the deceased and the defendant driver.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles of negligence and contributory negligence in the context of road accidents. It examined the evidence presented to ascertain the causative factors of the collision and the degree of responsibility attributable to each party. The court applied established legal principles to determine whether the deceased had failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, and if so, the extent to which this failure contributed to their death. This assessment would then inform the reduction of damages payable by the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

32 The proposed orders are as follows:

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.

CITATION:	Richards v Picco [2000] NSWCA 35
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40378/98
HEARING DATE(S):	15 February 2000
JUDGMENT DATE:	10 March 2000
PARTIES :	Appellant: Jennifer Richards Respondent: Catherine Picco
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Meagher JA at 2; Heydon JA at 12

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC 5336/97
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Puckeridge J

COUNSEL:	Appellant: Mr JD Hislop QC, P. O'Conner Respondent: Mr B Murray QC, R Hanrahan
SOLICITORS:	Appellant: McCulloch & Buggy Respondent: Allen, Allen & Hemsley
CATCHWORDS:	Motor vehicle accident - Resulting in death - Negligence contrbutory of deceased - assessment of damages
LEGISLATION CITED:	Suitors' Fund Act
CASES CITED:	Cocks v Sheppard (1978) 25 ALR 325
DECISION:	1. Appeal allowed.; 2. Verdict and judgment for the respondent set aside; 3. Verdict and judgment for the appellant substituted.; 4. Cross-appeal dismissed.; 5. The respondent pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal and the costs in the court below, and to have a certifcate under the Suitors' Fund Act if qualified.