Legal Research
Cases
Scrase v Jarvis

Scrase v Jarvis

Case [1998] QCA 441 22 December 1998

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 441
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane

Appeal No. 4030 of 1998

[Jarvis & Anor v. Scrase & Ors]

BETWEEN:

HENRY JAMES JARVIS

(First Defendant) First Appellant

AND:

SURFSIDE BUS LINES PTY LTD
(ACN 010 957 552)

(Second Defendant) Second Appellant

AND:

JEFFREY LAURENCE SCRASE

(Plaintiff) First Respondent

AND:

KEVIN JOHN LYNCH

(Third defendant) Second Respondent

AND:

NZI INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 001 948 278)

(First Third Party) Third Respondent

AND:

ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED
(ACN 000 296 640)

(Second Third Party) Fourth Respondent

AND:

MERCANTILE MUTUAL INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
(ACN 000 456 799)

(Third Third Party) Fifth Respondent

Appeal No. 4031 of 1998

[Jarvis & Anor v. Scrase & Ors]

BETWEEN:

HENRY JAMES JARVIS

(First Defendant) First Appellant

AND:

SURFSIDE BUS LINES PTY LTD
(ACN 010 957 552)

(Second Defendant) Second Appellant

AND:

CAROL ANNE SCRASE

(Plaintiff) First Respondent

AND:

KEVIN JOHN LYNCH

(Third defendant) Second Respondent

AND:

NZI INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 001 948 278)

(First Third Party) Third Respondent

AND:

ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED
(ACN 000 296 640)

(Second Third Party) Fourth Respondent

AND:

MERCANTILE MUTUAL INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
(ACN 000 456 799)

(Third Third Party) Fifth Respondent

Pincus J.A. Williams J. Muir J.

Judgment delivered 22 December 1998

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; Williams J dissenting in part.

APPEALS DISMISSED WITH COSTS.

THIRD RESPONDENT TO PAY TO THE OTHER PARTIES, INCLUDING THE THIRD PARTIES OTHER THAN THE THIRD RESPONDENT, THEIR COSTS OF AND INCIDENTAL TO THE NOTICES OF CONTENTION.

CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - motor vehicle accident - whether driver of a school bus has a duty to warn - meaning of “fault of the owner or driver of the vehicle in the use or operation of the vehicle” within the meaning of those words in schedule 1 to the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW).
Counsel:	Mr R.G. Bain Q.C., with him Mr G.K. Flint for the appellants Mr A.J. Bellanto Q.C., with him Mr P.J. Woods for the first respondents Mr J.D. Hislop Q.C., with him Mr E.G. Romaniuk for the second respondent Mr G. Greenwood S.C., with him Ms R. Pepper for the third respondent Mr J.A. Griffin QC, with him Mr R.D. Green for the fourth respondent Mr G.T.W. Miller Q.C. for the fifth respondent
Solicitors:	Dunhill Madden Butler for the appellants Attwood Marshall Lawyers for the first respondents Moray and Agnew for the second respondent Phillips Fox for the third respondent Gadens for the fourth respondent Corrs Chambers for the fifth respondent
Hearing Date:	13 November 1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

Before

Pincus J.A. Williams J. Muir J.

Appeal No. 4030 of 1998

[Jarvis & Anor. v. Scrase & Ors.]

BETWEEN:

HENRY JAMES JARVIS

(First Defendant) First Appellant

AND:

SURFSIDE BUS LINES PTY LT

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 Scrase v Jarvis

Details

AGLC: Scrase v Jarvis [1998] QCA 441
Case: [1998] QCA 441
Decision Date: 22/12/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Scrase, initiated legal proceedings against Jarvis, the defendant, following a motor vehicle accident. The incident occurred when a school bus, operated by Jarvis, collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The central issue in the case was whether Jarvis, as the driver of the school bus, owed a duty to warn the plaintiff about the presence of children on the bus and, if so, whether this duty was breached, leading to the accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine the scope of the duty of care owed by a school bus driver in relation to other road users and whether such a duty included warning other drivers about the presence of children on the bus. Additionally, the court had to interpret the phrase “fault of the owner or driver of the vehicle in the use or operation of the vehicle” as it appears in Schedule 1 of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW). This interpretation was critical in assessing whether Jarvis’s actions constituted a breach of duty that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Supreme Court held that a school bus driver does not have a general duty to warn other road users about the presence of children on the bus. The court found that the phrase in question within the Motor Accidents Act was intended to address situations where the accident was caused by a defect in the vehicle or improper operation by the driver. The court concluded that the accident in this case was not caused by any fault in the use or operation of the bus. Therefore, Jarvis was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders