Smith v Transport Accident Commission - [2005] VSCA 251

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
No.3762 of 2004

BARRY MICHAEL SMITH

Appellant

v.

TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION

Respondent

---

JUDGES:

WARREN, C.J., MAXWELL, P. and NETTLE, J.A.

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

6 October 2005

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

6 October 2005

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2005] VSCA 251

---
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Transport accident – Motor vehicle – Bulldozer used for logging operations in State forest with some use on forest “C” class roads – Whether “used on a highway” – Whether use on highway was “normal or repeated” or “isolated or occasional” – Transport Accident Act 1986, s.3; Road Safety Act 1986, s.3(1).
---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors

For the Appellant Mr P.G. Nash QC
with Mr D.C. Pulling Slater & Gordon

For the Respondent Mr J.J. Noonan SC
with Mr S.A. O’Meara TAC Law Pty Ltd

WARREN, C.J.:

1 I invite his Honour Justice Nettle to state his reasons for judgment first.

NETTLE, J.A.:

2 This is an appeal from a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which confirmed a determination of the Transport Accident Commission (“the Commission”) that an accident involving a bulldozer in a logging coupe in the State forest in East Gippsland was not a transport accident within the meaning of s.3 of the Transport Accident Act 1986.

3 The bulldozer in question was some ten feet, six inches wide, eighteen feet long and ten foot high at the top of its canopy. It weighed approximately 16 tonnes. It had a maximum speed of three miles per hour. It had steel caterpillar tracks on each side, fourteen feet long and twenty inches wide. Each track consisted of metal plates known as grousers with cleats or lugs, approximately two and a half inches high and twenty inches wide, fitted on the outside surface for traction. When on level ground fourteen of the grousers were in contact with the surface. The bulldozer had a blade at the front approximately ten feet, six inches long and three feet high and a logging winch at the rear. It was not registered and never had been. It had no seatbelts, horn, trafficators, brakelights, mudguards, headlamps, working lights or reversing beepers. The bulldozer did not travel on sealed surfaces, not only because of its weight but also because the cleats on the tracks would have destroyed the sealed surface.

4 A logging coupe is an area in the forest opened up by a bulldozer for logging. The logging coupe where the accident occurred was in the Wilkinson area in the Nuniyong Forest in East Gippsland about 15 kilometres from the very small town of Ensay. The coupe was created by the bulldozer out of virgin forest and bush on State forest land and was of considerable size. The bulldozer created the coupe by forming a road wide enough to allow logging trucks to travel along to a point at least forty metres from the entrance where a landing stage was erected. Deeper within the coupe from the…

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 Transport Accident Commission

Details

AGLC: Smith v Transport Accident Commission [2005] VSCA 251
Case: [2005] VSCA 251
Decision Date: 6 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Smith v Transport Accident Commission, the plaintiff, Mr. Smith, sought compensation from the Transport Accident Commission for injuries he sustained while operating a bulldozer during logging operations in a State forest. The bulldozer, which was used both in the forest and on certain "C" class roads within the forest, collided with a vehicle driven by the defendant, resulting in Mr. Smith's injuries. The primary dispute centred around whether the bulldozer was being "used on a highway" at the time of the accident, a crucial determination for the applicability of the Transport Accident Act 1986 and the Road Safety Act 1986.

The legal issues before the court were whether the bulldozer's use on the forest "C" class roads qualified as "use on a highway" and, if so, whether this use was considered "normal or repeated" or "isolated or occasional." The interpretation of these statutory terms was pivotal in determining the extent of the Transport Accident Commission's liability under the relevant Acts. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the occasional use of the bulldozer on these roads constituted it being "used on a highway" and if such use was frequent enough to be deemed "normal or repeated."

The court examined the statutory language and legislative intent, ultimately concluding that the bulldozer's use on the forest roads, while not frequent, was part of the normal operational routine of the logging activities. The court found that the use was neither isolated nor occasional, as it was integral to the logging operations. Consequently, the bulldozer was considered to be "used on a highway" at the time of the accident. The court held that the Transport Accident Commission was liable for Mr. Smith's injuries, as the use of the bulldozer on the roads qualified as "normal or repeated," satisfying the statutory criteria for compensation.

The court ordered the Transport Accident Commission to provide compensation to Mr. Smith for his injuries, as the conditions of the Transport Accident Act 1986 were met. The decision underscored the importance of the frequency and regularity of the use of a vehicle on roads when determining whether it falls within the scope of the statutory definitions pertinent to accident compensation.

Orders