Rodrigues v Aliivaa - [2010] WADC 152

RODRIGUES -v- ALIIVAA [2010] WADC 152

Last Update: 18/10/2010

RODRIGUES -v- ALIIVAA [2010] WADC 152
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WADC 152
Case No:	CIV:1000/2009, CIV:1237/2009	Heard:	10 AUGUST 2010
Coram:	SCOTT DCJ	Delivered:	14/10/2010
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	CIV 1000 of 2009 - Plaintiff succeeds on liability CIV 1237 of 2009 - Plaintiff's claim dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	ANGELA RITA RODRIGUES JORDAN ALIIVAA INSURANCE COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Motor vehicle collision – Liability only – Negligence and contributory negligence – Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Fatal Accidents Act 1959 Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943
Case References:	British Fame (Owners) v Macgregor (Owners) [1943] AC 197 Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Co Ltd [1951] AC 601 Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10 Tebbit v Dunne & Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2009] QCA 86

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : RODRIGUES -v- ALIIVAA [2010] WADC 152 CORAM : SCOTT DCJ HEARD : 10 AUGUST 2010 DELIVERED : 14 OCTOBER 2010 FILE NO/S : CIV 1000 of 2009 BETWEEN : ANGELA RITA RODRIGUES

Plaintiff

AND

JORDAN ALIIVAA

Defendant

FILE NO/S : CIV 1237 of 2009 BETWEEN : JORDAN ALIIVAA

Plaintiff

AND

INSURANCE COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Defendant

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Motor vehicle collision – Liability only – Negligence and contributory negligence – Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Fatal Accidents Act 1959
Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

CIV 1000 of 2009 - Plaintiff succeeds on liability
CIV 1237 of 2009 - Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Representation:

CIV 1000 of 2009

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr B G Bradley

Defendant : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bradley Bayly Legal

Defendant : Simon Walters

CIV 1237 of 2009

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D R Clyne

Defendant : Mr B C Sierakowski

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Simon Walters

Defendant : Brian C Sierakowski

(Page 3)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

British Fame (Owners) v Macgregor (Owners) [1943] AC 197
Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Co Ltd [1951] AC 601
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
Tebbit v Dunne & Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2009] QCA 86

(Page 4)

1 SCOTT DCJ: At or about 4 pm on 7 May 2006, a collision occurred between a Toyota sedan registered number 1AIR 557 (the Toyota) being driven by Derrick Rosario Rodrigues and a Nissan coupe registered number 1AUY 191 (the Nissan) being driven by Jordan Aliivaa.

2 Mr Rodrigues was driving the Toyota in a southerly direction in Karel Avenue, Leeming and was endeavouring to complete a right hand turn into Hartfield Crescent. Hartfield Crescent and Karel Avenue form a T-junction in which Karel Avenue is the continuing road.

3 Mr Aliivaa was driving the Nissan in a northerly direction in Karel Avenue towards that intersection. As Mr Rodrigues endeavoured to negotiate the right hand turn into Hartfield Crescent,…

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 Rodrigues v Aliivaa

Details

AGLC: Rodrigues v Aliivaa [2010] WADC 152
Case: [2010] WADC 152
Decision Date: 14 OCTOBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rodrigues v Aliivaa, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12 March 2009. The plaintiff, Mr Rodrigues, alleged that the defendant, Mr Aliivaa, was negligent in causing the collision, while Mr Aliivaa contended that the plaintiff was also negligent and thus contributorily liable. The matter was determined in the District Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether Mr Aliivaa was negligent and, if so, whether Mr Rodrigues was also contributorily negligent. The court needed to assess the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the collision, the actions of both parties leading up to the accident, and the applicable principles of negligence and contributory negligence under Western Australian law.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Mr Aliivaa was indeed negligent in causing the collision. The evidence indicated that Mr Aliivaa failed to maintain a proper lookout while driving, resulting in the collision. However, the court also found that Mr Rodrigues was contributorily negligent in his driving. The court concluded that the plaintiff's actions were a significant contributing factor to the accident. As a result, Mr Rodrigues was awarded damages for his injuries, but his damages were reduced by 50% due to his contributory negligence. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in case number CIV 1237 of 2009, where he sought to recover damages for property damage to his vehicle.

Orders

Orders of the court

CIV 1000 of 2009 - Plaintiff succeeds on liability

CIV 1237 of 2009 - Plaintiff's claim dismissed

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.