Smith v Randall and Anor - [2016] QSC 191

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smith v Randall & Anor [2016] QSC 191

PARTIES:

JOSHUA SMITH

(plaintiff)

v
PAUL MICHAEL RANDALL

(first defendant)
and
AAI LIMITED
(second defendant)

PAUL MICHAEL RANDALL
(plaintiff)
v
JOSHUA JOHN SMITH and AAI LIMITED
ACN 005 297 807)
(defendants)

FILE NOS:

SC No. 2725 of 2015
SC No. 2 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27, 28, 29 July 2016

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

Direct the parties in each proceeding to confer and bring in draft minutes of judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES – APPORTIONMENT IN PARTICULAR SITATUATIONS AND CASES – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – FAILURE TO LOOK-OUT – FAILURE TO GIVE WARNINGS OR SIGNALS – where the driver of a delivery truck is travelling behind the driver of a utility on a one-lane highway before dawn – where the utility slows and moves towards the centre line of the road as it approaches a private driveway on its right – where the utility driver does not indicate an intention to turn right into the driveway – where the truck attempts to overtake the utility on its right, in the lane for oncoming traffic – where the utility commences to turn right into the private driveway and into the path of the overtaking truck – where the vehicles collide – where the driver of the utility is affected by alcohol – whether each driver breached the standard of care required of a driver in his position – where each driver’s breach caused the collision – assessment of the comparative culpability of each driver

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 9(1), s 9(2), s 11, s 23,
s 23(2), s 47

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 80, s 80(16F), s 80(16FA)

Allen v Chadwick [2015] HCA 47, cited
Freeleagus v Nominal Defendant [2007] QCA 116, cited
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529, cited
Rains v Frost Enterprises Pty Ltd [1975] Qd R 287, cited
T & X Company Pty Ltd v Chivas [2014] NSWCA 235, cited
Thurgar v Gollschewski [2002] QCA 430, cited

Vos v Hawkswell [2010] QCA 92, cited

COUNSEL:

A G Munt for the plaintiff/defendant (Smith)

S Cleary for the first defendant/plaintiff (Randall)

K S Howe for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Slater & Gordon for the plaintiff/defendant (Smith)

Shine Lawyers for the first defendant/plaintiff (Randall)

Moray & Agnew for the second defendant

At around 5.00am on 21 January 2013 Mr Paul Randall, a jockey, was driving his utility west along the Gore Highway, outside of Toowoomba. He was on his way to perform trackwork at the Barham Stud track, which is located on the northern side of the highway.
At the same time, Mr Joshua Smith was driving a milk truck in the same westerly direction.…

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 Smith v Randall and Anor

Details

AGLC: Smith v Randall [2016] QSC 191
Case: [2016] QSC 191
Decision Date: 26 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Smith v Randall and Anor, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was called upon to determine the apportioned responsibility and damages between two drivers involved in a road accident. The plaintiff, Smith, was the driver of a delivery truck, and the defendants, Randall and Anor, were the drivers of a utility vehicle. The incident occurred on a one-lane highway before dawn, where the utility vehicle, driven by Anor, slowed and moved towards the centre line without indicating an intention to turn into a private driveway on its right. The delivery truck, driven by Randall, attempted to overtake the utility vehicle on the right, in the lane for oncoming traffic. The utility vehicle then commenced to turn right into the private driveway, directly into the path of the overtaking truck, resulting in a collision. Anor, the driver of the utility vehicle, was affected by alcohol at the time of the accident.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether each driver breached the standard of care required of a driver in their respective positions and whether each driver's breach caused the collision. Additionally, the court was required to assess the comparative culpability of each driver. The court considered the circumstances leading up to the accident, including the timing of the events, the actions of each driver, and the impact of alcohol on Anor's driving ability.

The court found that both drivers breached the standard of care required of a driver in their respective positions. Anor, the driver of the utility vehicle, failed to properly look out for oncoming traffic and did not give appropriate warnings or signals when turning into the private driveway. Randall, the driver of the delivery truck, also breached the standard of care by attempting to overtake the utility vehicle on the right, in the lane for oncoming traffic, without ensuring it was safe to do so. Both drivers' breaches contributed to the collision, and the court assessed the comparative culpability of each driver in relation to the accident. The court determined that Anor was more culpable for the collision due to their failure to indicate an intention to turn, which directly led to the truck's attempt to overtake and the subsequent collision.

Pending the parties' conferral and submission of draft minutes of judgment, the court directed the parties in each proceeding to confer and bring in draft minutes of judgment. The court will make the final orders once the draft minutes of judgment have been reviewed and approved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Direct the parties in each proceeding to confer and bring in draft minutes of judgment.

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.

CITATION:	Smith v Randall & Anor [2016] QSC 191
PARTIES:	JOSHUA SMITH (plaintiff) v PAUL MICHAEL RANDALL (first defendant) and AAI LIMITED (second defendant) PAUL MICHAEL RANDALL (plaintiff) v JOSHUA JOHN SMITH and AAI LIMITED ACN 005 297 807) (defendants)
FILE NOS:	SC No. 2725 of 2015 SC No. 2 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27, 28, 29 July 2016
JUDGE:	Applegarth J
ORDER:	Direct the parties in each proceeding to confer and bring in draft minutes of judgment.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES – APPORTIONMENT IN PARTICULAR SITATUATIONS AND CASES – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – FAILURE TO LOOK-OUT – FAILURE TO GIVE WARNINGS OR SIGNALS – where the driver of a delivery truck is travelling behind the driver of a utility on a one-lane highway before dawn – where the utility slows and moves towards the centre line of the road as it approaches a private driveway on its right – where the utility driver does not indicate an intention to turn right into the driveway – where the truck attempts to overtake the utility on its right, in the lane for oncoming traffic – where the utility commences to turn right into the private driveway and into the path of the overtaking truck – where the vehicles collide – where the driver of the utility is affected by alcohol – whether each driver breached the standard of care required of a driver in his position – where each driver’s breach caused the collision – assessment of the comparative culpability of each driver Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 9(1), s 9(2), s 11, s 23, s 23(2), s 47 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 80, s 80(16F), s 80(16FA) Allen v Chadwick [2015] HCA 47, cited Freeleagus v Nominal Defendant [2007] QCA 116, cited Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529, cited Rains v Frost Enterprises Pty Ltd [1975] Qd R 287, cited T & X Company Pty Ltd v Chivas [2014] NSWCA 235, cited Thurgar v Gollschewski [2002] QCA 430, cited Vos v Hawkswell [2010] QCA 92, cited
COUNSEL:	A G Munt for the plaintiff/defendant (Smith) S Cleary for the first defendant/plaintiff (Randall) K S Howe for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Slater & Gordon for the plaintiff/defendant (Smith) Shine Lawyers for the first defendant/plaintiff (Randall) Moray & Agnew for the second defendant