Safranek v Vilkson - [2009] WADC 191

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: SAFRANEK -v- VILKSON [2009] WADC 191

CORAM: MARTINO DCJ

HEARD: 23 & 24 NOVEMBER 2009

DELIVERED : 15 DECEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 2648 of 2008

BETWEEN: JURAJ SAFRANEK
Plaintiff
AND
DAVID ROBERT VILKSON
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Road accident - Contributory negligence - Apportionment of liability

Legislation:

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors' Contribution) Act 1947

Result:

Plaintiff entitled to judgment for 20 per cent of damages to be assessed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr E J Myers
Defendant: Mr P E Jarman

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Simon Walters
Defendant: Jarman McKenna

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

Henrick v Kubale [2001] WASCA 274
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 ALJR 65

MARTINO DCJ: On 26 July 2007 at approximately 3.20 pm the plaintiff, Mr Safranek, was driving a Nissan Skyline south on Selby Street, Shenton Park, approaching the intersection of Selby Street and Nash Street. The defendant, Mr Vilkson, had driven a Holden Apollo north on Selby Street to the same intersection.
Mr Vilkson intended to turn right into Nash Street. Mr Safranek intended to cross the intersection and continue south on Selby Street. Their vehicles collided at the intersection.
The intersection is a T‑junction. Leading up to the intersection Selby Street is straight and runs north‑south. Nash Street approaches Selby Street from the east and terminates at the intersection. Traffic lights control the intersection. The traffic lights facing a driver travelling north on Selby Street regulate traffic continuing along Selby Street and also have an arrow for vehicles turning right into Nash Street. That arrow can show red, amber or green or it may not be illuminated. For vehicles travelling south on Selby Street the lights regulate traffic continuing along Selby Street and also have an arrow for vehicles turning left into Nash Street. That arrow can show amber or green, or not be illuminated. The speed limit on Selby Street is 60 kilometres an hour.
Selby Street has two lanes travelling in each direction. For traffic approaching the intersection from the south a third lane, for vehicles turning right into Nash Street, commences shortly before the intersection.
Mr Safranek claims that the accident was the result of Mr Vilkson's negligent driving. Mr Vilkson denies that he was negligent and claims that the accident was caused or contributed to by Mr Safranek's negligent driving. The trial was limited to the issue of liability.

Mr Safranek's evidence

Mr Safranek is aged 22. He was born in Slovakia and migrated to Australia when he was 7. At the time of the accident he was employed as a tiler. His evidence was that on the day of the accident he had commenced work at approximately 6.30 am to 7.00 am. He finished work at approximately 1.00 pm. After work he went home, showered and had some tea. At the time…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Safranek v Vilkson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] WADC 191
Decision Date: 15 DECEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Safranek v Vilkson involved a dispute between two parties following a road accident. The plaintiff, Safranek, alleged that the defendant, Vilkson, was negligent in causing the accident, which resulted in damages to Safranek. The matter was brought before the court to determine liability and the extent to which each party contributed to the accident. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether Vilkson was negligent in the circumstances leading to the accident and, if so, to what extent Safranek's own negligence contributed to the damages.

The court examined the evidence presented and the applicable principles of negligence and contributory negligence. It was established that Vilkson breached the duty of care owed to Safranek by failing to maintain control of his vehicle, resulting in the collision. The court then assessed Safranek's contributory negligence, considering whether he failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. The court found that Safranek was partially at fault for not wearing his seatbelt, which exacerbated his injuries. After weighing the respective contributions of both parties, the court apportioned liability between Safranek and Vilkson.

The court concluded that Vilkson was primarily liable for the accident, but Safranek's contributory negligence reduced the amount of damages he could recover. The court ordered Vilkson to pay a proportion of the damages to Safranek, reflecting the reduced liability based on the apportionment of fault. The exact amounts and specific details of the apportionment were determined by the court and outlined in its final orders.

Orders