DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Sharp v Carlin & Anor [2015] QDC 288 |
PARTIES: | ROSANNA MARIE SHARP (plaintiff) v MURRAY ALEXANDER CARLIN (first defendant) and AAI LIMITED ABN 48 005 297 807 TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE (second defendant) |
FILE NO/S: | BD 1403/2014 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Trial |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 20 November 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 16 November 2015 |
JUDGE: | Samios DCJ |
ORDER: | 1. The plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant and the second defendant is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – PERSONAL INJURIES – ROAD ACCIDENTS – Pedestrian Legislation Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld) s 141 Cases Caldwell v Deka (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal, Kirby, Clarke and Meagher JJ, 16 June 1993) Derrick v Cheung (2001) 181 ALR 301, [13] Knight v Maclean [2002] NSWCA 314, [66], [67] and [68] Stocks & McDonald Hamilton Co Pty Ltd v Baldwin [1996] NSWCA 1 |
COUNSEL: | Ms J McClymont for the plaintiff Mr R Lynch for the defendants |
SOLICITORS: | Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff Bray Lawyers for the defendants |
The plaintiff (Ms Sharp) claims against the defendants damages for personal injuries, loss and damage she suffered when she was struck by a bus.
Ms Sharp sues the first defendant who was the bus driver and the second defendant which is the insurer of the bus.
There is no dispute Ms Sharp suffered personal injuries, loss and damage as a result of the collision. The quantum of Ms Sharp’s damages is agreed at $175,000. Liability remains an issue.
Ms Sharp was born on 1 November 1988. At about 5.55pm on Friday 20 December 2010 she was in the process of walking to her place of work at Cue in the Wintergarden complex on the Queen Street Mall. She gave evidence that she got the bus in from the Gap to King George Square. She said there was always a lot of people on the Friday night, people shopping and there was always a lot of cars, a lot of people everywhere. She said there was people walking across Adelaide Street left, right and centre as well as cars. She noticed as the days approached Christmas before this collision there was more traffic and more people out on a Friday night. She said that is how it was on the day of her accident.
Ms Sharp said she came out of King George Square bus station. She walked down the road to her left. She decided to cross the road a little bit further down to her left after exiting the bus station and then she proceeded across the road. She observed the traffic was banked up a long way. The lights were red. Her immediate lane that she would be crossing was completely clear, and she decided that it would be safe to get across the road at that point. She said the lights were red right outside King George Square…
Continue reading Sharp v Carlin
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sharp v Carlin [2015] QDC 288
- Case
- [2015] QDC 288
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and if so, whether this breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff contributed to their injuries by failing to take reasonable care themselves. The court examined the evidence and applicable legal principles to assess the standard of care expected of the defendants and the plaintiff, and whether this standard was breached. It also considered the extent to which any breach contributed to the plaintiff's injuries.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the plaintiff did not establish that the defendants breached a duty of care. The court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that the defendants were negligent in their operation of the vehicle. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to prove that their injuries were caused by the defendants' alleged breach of duty. The court also found that the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the accident, absolving the defendants of liability. Consequently, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in its entirety.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against both the driver and the owner of the vehicle, finding that the plaintiff did not prove negligence on the part of the defendants and that their own actions contributed to the accident. The judgment was final, and no appeal was possible.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant and the second defendant is dismissed.
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.