Legal Research
Cases
Savino v Schieven

Savino v Schieven

Case [2015] VSCA 67 23 April 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2014 0147

John Savino

John Schieven

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ, FERGUSON and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 April 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 67
ORDERS APPEALED FROM:	Orders of Williams J dated 31 October 2014.

TORT – Negligence – Jury trial – Motor vehicle accident – Verdict for defendant – Whether verdict open to jury on evidence most favourable to defendant – Duty of care by defendant to plaintiff – Verdict in favour of defendant was open to jury on evidence adduced – Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
Applicant	Mr A Ingram Ms M Pilipasidis	Slater & Gordon
Respondent	Mr M Ruskin QC Mr D Oldfield	Transport Accident Commission

WARREN CJ:

I agree with the reasons of Kaye JA. I too would dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

FERGUSON JA:

I also agree with Kaye JA.

KAYE JA:

On 14 August 2011, the applicant was injured when a motor cycle ridden by him collided with a motor vehicle driven by the respondent in Plenty Road, Bundoora. The applicant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court claiming damages in respect of his injuries. At the trial of the proceeding, the jury returned a verdict that there was no negligence by the respondent that was a cause of the applicant’s injuries. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the verdict and the judgment entered upon it.

Before the hearing of the application, the Court informed the parties that it would hear and determine the appeal instanter if the application for leave was granted.

The sole ground of the proposed appeal is that the verdict of the jury was not open on the evidence adduced at the trial.

The evidence at trial

Before the collision the applicant had been riding his motor cycle south in the bicycle lane along Plenty Road, Bundoora, with the intention of turning into the left hand turn lane to enter the River Gum Shopping Centre that was located on Plenty Road. His friend, Claudio Villa, was riding his motor cycle alongside him. The respondent was travelling in the same direction, in the left hand lane of the carriageway. As the respondent’s vehicle approached the shopping centre, he executed a left hand turn, intending to cross the bicycle lane in order to enter the left hand turn lane to the shopping centre. As he did so, the motor cycle ridden by the applicant collided with the front passenger door of his vehicle.

The applicant gave evidence that shortly before the collision he had been travelling at between 50 kph and 60 kph. He said that he had travelled in the bicycle lane for approximately 15 metres before the left hand turn, and in doing so had passed approximately two vehicles which were travelling south in the left hand lane of the carriageway. He said that suddenly a car in the left hand lane…

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 Savino v Schieven

Details

AGLC: Savino v Schieven [2015] VSCA 67
Case: [2015] VSCA 67
Decision Date: 23 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Savino v Schieven involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff, Savino, sought damages from the defendant, Schieven, for injuries sustained. The matter was tried before a jury, which ultimately returned a verdict in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff sought to appeal this decision, claiming the jury should not have returned a verdict in favour of the defendant based on the evidence presented. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence most favourable to the defendant. This involved determining whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and if the evidence supported a finding that the defendant's actions were not negligent. The court had to consider the standard of proof in civil cases and the role of the jury in determining factual disputes.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence most favourable to the defendant. The court examined the evidence presented during the trial and concluded that there was sufficient basis for the jury to find that the defendant did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court emphasised the importance of the jury's role in assessing the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the jury's verdict in favour of the defendant.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.

Orders