Scheldrick v Beveridge

Case [2006] NSWDC 189


Reported Decision:

4 DCLR (NSW) 281 Appeal dismissed [2007] NSWCA 105

District Court


CITATION: Sheldrick v Beveridge [2006] NSWDC 189
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 8, 9, 10 and 11 May 2006
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

11 May 2006
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 05/11/2006
JURISDICTION: Civil Jurisdiction
JUDGMENT OF: Johnstone DCJ at 1
DECISION: Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; Verdict for the plaintiff against the second defendant; Agreed total damages of $600,000 reduced by 40% for contributory negligence; Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $360,000; Judgment for the first defendant against the second defendant; Costs to follow these events; Bullock order refused.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Child on bicycle hit by car when returning home, unsupervised, from a school excursion - Driver not negligent - Teachers and school negligent - Contributory negligence by child - Bullock order refused
CASES CITED: Barisic v Devenport [1978] 2 NSWLR 111
Berrigan Shire Council v Ballerini (No 2) [2006] VCSA 65
Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse [2005] NSWCA 342 at [13] - [15]
Clarke v Friend 29 MVR 361 at [14]
Cook v Hawes [2002] NSWCA 79 at [15]
Derek v Cheung (2001) 81 ALR 301 at [10]
Furber v Stacey (2005) NSWCA 242 at [116]
Gunning v Fellows (1997) MVR 97 at p 100
Knight v McLean [2002] NSWCA 314 at [61] - [68]
Martin v Reda (2004) 41 MVR 421
Ohn v Walton (1995) 36NSWLR 77 at 79
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited (1985) 59 ALR 529 at 532-3
Rowes Business Service Pty Limited v Cowan [1999] NSWCA 268 at [37]
Steward v Carnell (1984) 2 MVR 147
Stocks v Baldwin (1996) 24 MVR 416 at p 418
Williams v Lewer [1974] 2 NSWLR 91 at 95
PARTIES: Neil William Sheldrick (Plaintiff)
Cheryl Beveridge (First Defendant)
State of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): 4606/04
COUNSEL: Mr F Austin for the Plaintiff
Mr R Bartlett SC for the First Defendant
Mr P Menary for the Second Defendant
SOLICITORS: Lyons & Lyons (Plaintiff)
Lee & Lyons (First Defendant)
Hicksons (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT

Factual background

1. The plaintiff in these proceedings is Neil Sheldrick. He was born on 19 October 1981 and is now 24 years of age, and resides with his brother and another friend. He was studying at university but unfortunately dropped out about a month ago. He is working as a barman.


2. On 22 February 1996 at the age of 14 he sustained severe injuries when in the course of riding a bicycle in the streets of Albury he collided with a motor vehicle. The accident occurred at the intersection of Alma Street and North Street in the northern suburbs of Albury.


3. The first defendant, Mrs Cheryl Beveridge, was the driver of that motor vehicle. She was a resident of Albury at the time of the accident.

Continue reading Scheldrick v Beveridge

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Scheldrick v Beveridge [2006] NSWDC 189
Case
[2006] NSWDC 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Scheldrick v Beveridge, the plaintiff, a minor, sought damages for injuries sustained when he was hit by a car while riding his bicycle home from a school excursion. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the car, as well as the school and its teachers for allowing him to return home unsupervised. The defendant, the driver of the car, denied any negligence and cross-claimed against the school and its teachers for contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the driver was negligent in the circumstances of the accident, whether the school and its teachers were negligent in allowing the plaintiff to return home unsupervised, and whether the plaintiff's contributory negligence should reduce any damages awarded. The court also had to consider whether a Bullock order should be made, which would allow the plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant despite his contributory negligence.

The court found that the driver was not negligent in the circumstances of the accident, as he had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the plaintiff. However, the court found the school and its teachers negligent for allowing the plaintiff to return home unsupervised, as they should have known the potential danger this posed. The court also found the plaintiff contributory negligent, as he had failed to take reasonable care for his own safety by riding his bicycle home unsupervised. As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of $600,000, reduced by 40% for his contributory negligence, and ordered the school and its teachers to pay $360,000 in damages to the plaintiff. The court also ordered the school and its teachers to pay the driver's costs. The court refused to make a Bullock order, as it would not be just and equitable to do so in the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were a verdict and judgment for the driver against the plaintiff, a verdict for the plaintiff against the school and its teachers, damages of $360,000 for the plaintiff against the school and its teachers, judgment for the plaintiff against the school and its teachers, judgment for the driver against the school and its teachers, and costs to follow the events of the case. A Bullock order was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; Verdict for the plaintiff against the second defendant; Agreed total damages of $600,000 reduced by 40% for contributory negligence; Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $360,000; Judgment for the first defendant against the second defendant; Costs to follow these events; Bullock order refused.

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.