Ryan v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer

Case [2020] NSWCA 38


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2020] NSWCA 38
Hearing dates: 28 February 2020
Decision date: 11 March 2020
Before: Leeming JA;
Payne JA;
White JA.
Decision:

1. Appeal allowed.

 

2. Set aside the orders made on 13 August 2019, and in lieu thereof, order that the proceedings be dismissed, with costs.

 3. Respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – motor vehicle accidents – recovery proceeding by workers compensation nominal insurer – worker drove into stationary oversize truck while latter stopped at intersection – trailer protruded from right turning lane into worker’s through lane – whether truck driver breached duty by failing to advance into intersection beyond unbroken stop-line – whether truck driver breached duty by failing to activate hazard lights – whether failure to activate hazard lights caused collision – appeal allowed and judgment entered for truck driver
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5D, 5E
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127
Road Rules 2008, rr 56, 146, 311
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 151Z
Cases Cited: Kollas v Scurrah [2008] NSWCA 17
Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA 128
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Stephen Patrick Ryan (Appellant)   
Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
K Rewell SC (Appellant)
W Fitzsimmons SC (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
McInnes Wilson Lawyers NSW (Appellant)
Stiles Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/221432
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Date of Decision:
13 August 2019
Before:
Curtis ADCJ
File Number(s):
2018/00093520

Judgment

  1. LEEMING JA: The appellant, Mr Stephen Patrick Ryan, was an experienced truck driver. Just before 6:00 am on 30 June 2011, while at traffic lights in a right turning lane on the Princes Highway near Loftus waiting to turn into Farnell Ave towards Bundeena, Mr Ryan’s articulated vehicle was struck in the rear by a Holden Commodore station wagon driven by Mr Bradley Stahlhut. Mr Stahlhut was driving in the through lane adjacent to the right-turning lane. It was accepted that at the time of the collision, Mr Ryan’s trailer protruded into the through lane, and Mr Stahlhut’s vehicle was wholly in his own lane.

  2. Mr Stahlhut was travelling to work. He suffered serious injuries, and continues to receive workers compensation. His vehicle struck that of another driver, travelling in the kerbside lane, who had been overtaken by Mr Stahlhut shortly before the collision, and that other driver and his wife (Mr and Mrs McMaster) also suffered milder injuries. The couple and another driver (Mr Schofield) who had been travelling slightly ahead and saw the accident in his rear mirror, gave evidence at the trial. So did Mr Ryan. Mr Stahlhut had no recollection of the collision and did not give evidence.

  3. It seems that Mr Stahlhut’s employer had not paid workers compensation insurance premiums, and that the payments to Mr Stahlhut had been made by the respondent Workers…

Continue reading Ryan v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ryan v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2020] NSWCA 38
Case
[2020] NSWCA 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, the driver of an oversize truck, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment entered against him in favour of the respondent, the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer. The dispute concerned a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident where the worker, driving a motor vehicle, collided with the appellant's stationary truck. The truck was stopped at an intersection, and its trailer protruded from the right-turning lane into the worker's through lane.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the truck driver breached his duty of care to the worker by failing to advance further into the intersection beyond the unbroken stop-line, and whether he breached his duty by failing to activate his hazard lights. The court was also required to determine whether any such breach, if established, caused the collision.

The Court of Appeal found that the truck driver had not breached his duty of care. It reasoned that the driver was entitled to stop at the stop-line and that there was no obligation to advance into the intersection when it was not clear to do so. Regarding the hazard lights, the court held that while the failure to activate them might have been a breach of duty, it was not causative of the collision. The worker's own evidence indicated that he was looking at his mobile phone immediately prior to the accident, and the court concluded that the hazard lights would not have prevented the collision in these circumstances.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous judgment against the truck driver was set aside, and the proceedings were dismissed with costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the orders made on 13 August 2019, and in lieu thereof, order that the proceedings be dismissed, with costs.

3. Respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

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.