Rowes Bus Service Pty Ltd v Cowan
Case
•
[1999] NSWCA 268
•27 July 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Rowes Bus Service Pty Ltd v Cowan [1999] NSWCA 268
[1999] NSWCA 268
27 July 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Rowes Bus Service Pty Ltd and Robert Sufong (the appellants) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of the District Court. The District Court had found them liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Ms. Cowan, who was struck by a motor vehicle after alighting from a bus operated by Rowes Bus Service. The plaintiff had alleged negligence on the part of both the bus company for allowing passengers to alight in a potentially dangerous area and the motor vehicle driver for his manner of driving.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellants had breached their respective duties of care to the plaintiff, whether such breaches caused or contributed to her injuries, and if so, how liability should be apportioned between them. The court also considered the plaintiff's contributory negligence and the quantum of damages awarded by the District Court.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that both the bus company and the motor vehicle driver owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. It found that the bus company was negligent in allowing passengers to alight in a location that presented a foreseeable risk of harm from passing traffic, and that the driver of the motor vehicle was also negligent in his driving. The court applied principles of reasonable foreseeability and causation to determine the extent of each party's liability. While upholding the finding of liability, the court adjusted the quantum of damages awarded, setting aside the original judgment and substituting a reduced amount. The court also confirmed the order for the appellants to pay the plaintiff's trial costs and ordered them to pay the costs of the appeal. The liability between the appellants was apportioned equally at 50 per cent each. The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the quantum of damages was dismissed.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the appellants had breached their respective duties of care to the plaintiff, whether such breaches caused or contributed to her injuries, and if so, how liability should be apportioned between them. The court also considered the plaintiff's contributory negligence and the quantum of damages awarded by the District Court.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that both the bus company and the motor vehicle driver owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. It found that the bus company was negligent in allowing passengers to alight in a location that presented a foreseeable risk of harm from passing traffic, and that the driver of the motor vehicle was also negligent in his driving. The court applied principles of reasonable foreseeability and causation to determine the extent of each party's liability. While upholding the finding of liability, the court adjusted the quantum of damages awarded, setting aside the original judgment and substituting a reduced amount. The court also confirmed the order for the appellants to pay the plaintiff's trial costs and ordered them to pay the costs of the appeal. The liability between the appellants was apportioned equally at 50 per cent each. The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the quantum of damages was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Damages
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Causation
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Hart v Beaumaris Football Club [2016] VCC 232
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Mobbs v Kain
[2009] NSWCA 301
Manly Council v Byrne
[2004] NSWCA 123
Lane v Chaplin
[2015] TASFC 4
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
0
Urban Transit Authority of New South Wales v Ruz-Canales
[1995] NSWCA 479
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day
[1998] HCA 3
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day
[1998] HCA 3