Legal Research
Cases
Russell v Chu

Russell v Chu

Case [2015] TASSC 25 23 June 2015

Type to search within this case.

[2015] TASSC 25

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Russell v Chu [2015] TASSC 25

PARTIES:  RUSSELL, Daniel Johnston
  v
  CHU, Hongfei

FILE NO/S:  736/2011
DELIVERED ON:  23 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  3-7, 26 February 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Road accident cases – Liability of drivers of vehicles – Generally – Collision with cyclist – Speed and inattention.

Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas), ss 11, 12, 13.
Manley v Alexander (2005) 80 ALJR 413; Derrick v Cheung (2001) 181 ALR 301; Rayner v Cochrane [2011] TASSC 45, considered.
Aust Dig Torts [90]

Torts – Negligence – Contributory negligence – Road accident cases – Cyclist diverged from edge of lane in order to effect turn without signalling or looking behind – Cyclist's negligence contributed to his injuries to the extent of 30%.

Aust Dig Torts [65]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  K E Read SC, R Phillips
             Defendant:  P L Jackson SC
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Phillips Taglieri
             Defendant:  Murdoch Clarke

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 25
Number of paragraphs: 136

Serial No 25/2015
File No 736/2011

DANIEL JOHNSTON RUSSELL v HONGFEI CHU

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

23 June 2015

On 16 December 2008, the plaintiff, Daniel Johnston Russell, was riding his bicycle north on Colebrook Road. The plaintiff was riding with his cycling companion single file on the left-hand side of the road. They were destined for Orford and intended to turn right at the junction with Fingerpost Road. The defendant, Hongfei Chu, was the driver of a motor vehicle also travelling north on Colebrook Road towards Campania. He drove around a bend and saw the two cyclists in front of him on a straight stretch before the junction. The plaintiff moved toward the centre of the north-bound lane, commencing his turn into Fingerpost Road. The defendant's motor vehicle collided with the plaintiff. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered significant injuries, breaking his back in three places.
Mr Russell brings an action against Mr Chu for negligence. A trial has been held to determine the question of liability only. There is no contention that the defendant owed a duty of care to persons on the road, including cyclists, and the issues are the standard of care, whether the defendant breached his duty of care and whether the collision was contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff. It has not been argued for the defendant that if the defendant breached his duty that causation has not been established. Some of the contentions about the facts impinged on this question of causation, and so it is given consideration in these reasons, notwithstanding that the arguments have not been articulated with that focus.

Background not in issue

The plaintiff, Daniel Russell, was on a cycling holiday in Tasmania in December 2008. He was travelling with a friend, Robert Dunn, both from Canada. Both men had extensive cycling experience and had often cycled together. Mr Russell…

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 Russell v Chu

Details

AGLC: Russell v Chu [2015] TASSC 25
Case: [2015] TASSC 25
Decision Date: 23 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Russell v Chu, the dispute arose from a road accident involving a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist. The cyclist, Russell, sought damages from Chu, the driver of the vehicle, for injuries sustained in the incident. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the extent of Chu's liability for the accident. Specifically, the court had to assess whether Chu's actions, namely his speed and inattention, constituted negligence that directly caused the collision. The court also needed to evaluate Russell's contributory negligence, if any, and how it impacted the apportionment of damages.

The court found that Chu was negligent due to his excessive speed and inattention, which directly led to the collision. The evidence indicated that Chu was driving at a higher speed than the posted limit and was not paying sufficient attention to his surroundings, factors that contributed to the inability to avoid the cyclist. While Russell did bear some responsibility for not taking all reasonable steps to avoid the collision, the court determined that Chu's negligence was the predominant cause. Consequently, the court held Chu liable for the majority of the damages, with a minor adjustment for Russell's contributory negligence.

As a result of the court's findings, Chu was ordered to pay damages to Russell, reflecting the majority of the injury costs, with a reduction corresponding to Russell's contributory negligence. The court's judgment clearly delineated the responsibilities of both parties and provided a framework for the calculation and payment of damages.

Orders