Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v Pledge

Ryan v Pledge

Case [2001] NSWSC 259 10 April 2001

Negligence

Contributory Negligence

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Apportionment of Damages

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Ryan v Pledge [2001] NSWSC 259

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20099/95

HEARING DATE(S): 29 January - 13 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 April 2001

PARTIES :

Nadia Catherine Ryan by her tutor Heather Ryan (Plaintiff)
Jack Pledge (First Defendant)
Blue Mountains City Council (Second Defendant)
Roads and Traffic Authority (Third Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : A Morrison SC / S Torrington / J Walsh (Plaintiff)
PR Garling SC / JM Morris (First Defendant)
M Windsor / G Gemmell (Second Defendant)
D Davies SC / S Woods (Third Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Stacks - The Law Firm (Plaintiff)
Abbott Tout (First Defendant)
Phillips Fox (Second Defendant)
IV Knight, Crown Solicitor (Third Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - pedestrian struck by motor vehicle - liability of driver - liability of highway authorities - misfeasance/non-feasance rule - contributory negligence of 9 year old pedestrian - CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN TORTFEASORS - damages against one tortfeasor capped by Motor Accidents Act 1988 - damages against other defendants uncapped - how contributions apportioned.

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Act 1988
Damages (Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929
Roads Act 1993
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Railways Acts 1914 to 1955 (Q)
Law Reform (Tortfeasors Contribution, Contributory Negligence and Division of Chattels) Act 1952 (Q)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946

CASES CITED: Buckle v Bayswater Road Board (1936) 57 CLR 259,
Gorringe v Transport Commission (Tas.) (1950) 80 CLR 357,
Webb v State of South Australia (1982) 56 ALJR 912,
Hughes v Hunters Hill Municipal Council (1992) 29 NSWLR 232,
Lake Macquarie City Council v Bottomley [1999] NSWCA 28,
Donaldson v Municipal Council of Sydney (1924) 24 SR 408,
Turner v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (1990) 12 MVR 321, 72 LGRA 60,
Gloucester Shire Council v McLenaghan [2000] NSWCA 208,
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180,
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1,
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424,
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330,
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431,
Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923,
McHale v Watson (1964) 111 CLR 384,
Figueroa v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (unreported - Simpson J - 18 March 1998),
Roads and Traffic Authority v Scroop (1998) 28 MVR 233,
Rouse v Shepherd (1994) 35 NSWLR 250,
Bitupave Ltd v Bollington (1998) 28 MVR 223,
Lanza v Codemo [2001] NSWSC 72,
Unsworth v Commissioner of Railways (1958) 101 CLR 73,
Commonwealth of Australia v Flaviano (1996) 40 NSWLR 199,
O'Sullivan v Thai Airways International Ltd (1998) 28 MVR 469.

DECISION: Judgment for plaintiff against each defendant. Proposed orders for contribution indicated.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DUNFORD J
Tuesday, 10 APRIL 2001
20099/95 Nadia Catherine RYAN by her tutor Heather RYAN v Jack PLEDGE & ors
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR. On the afternoon of 9 July 1994, the plaintiff,…

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 Ryan v Pledge

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Pledge [2001] NSWSC 259
Case: [2001] NSWSC 259
Decision Date: 10 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ryan versus Pledge, the dispute arose from an incident where a nine-year-old pedestrian, Ryan, was struck by a motor vehicle driven by Pledge. The case reached the court to determine the extent of the drivers' and highway authorities' liability, given Ryan's contributory negligence. Additionally, the court had to address how damages would be apportioned between the tortfeasors, considering that damages against one were capped by the Motor Accidents Act 1988, while those against the others were not. The central legal issues the court needed to resolve involved the principles of contributory negligence, the distinction between misfeasance and non-feasance in the context of the highway authorities' actions, and the appropriate method for allocating liability and damages between multiple defendants.

The court examined whether the driver's negligence and the highway authorities' alleged failure to maintain a safe road environment contributed to the accident. It also assessed Ryan's contributory negligence, which was a significant factor given his young age. The court then turned to the statutory cap on damages against the driver under the Motor Accidents Act, and how this impacted the overall apportionment of damages. The court held that despite the statutory cap, the highway authorities' liability could be determined in full. In apportioning damages, the court ruled that while the driver's liability was capped, the highway authorities' liability was uncapped, and thus, any damages awarded to Ryan that exceeded the cap would be attributable to the highway authorities. The court concluded that the total damages would be apportioned according to the degree of fault of each party.

The final orders of the court established that Pledge was liable for damages up to the statutory cap, while any additional damages owed to Ryan were to be borne by the highway authorities. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering both statutory caps and the contributory negligence of the victim when apportioning liability and damages among multiple defendants in personal injury cases.

Orders