Spiers v Norman - [2004] ACTSC 55

SPIERS v NORMAN
[2004] ACTSC 55 (28 June 2004)

NEGLIGENCE – personal injury – collision between motor vehicle and police vehicle – police vehicle in emergency or “priority one” mode travelling in bus/taxi lane at unreasonably excessive speed – plaintiff’s motor vehicle turned sharply into bus/taxi lane - no positive/conclusive evidence of plaintiff’s trafficator – no contributory negligence
DAMAGES – calculation – no issue of principle – head, neck and other injuries

Australian Road Rules, ss 33, 38, 48, 78, 79, 126, 147, 148, 154, 305 and 306

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Winter v Commonwealth (1992) 112 ACTR 10; (1992) 111 FLR 275

Leslie, P.A. and Britts, M.M.G., Leslie and Britts Motor Vehicle Law in NSW, 4^th ed

No. SC 624 of 2002

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 28 June 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SC 624 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN:SANDRA DARLENE SPIERS
Plaintiff

AND:JAMES NORMAN
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  28 June 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in the sum of $242,452.30.

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred at or about 4.22 pm on 24 December 2001. She had been driving her motor vehicle, a RAV 4-wheel drive, YBG-87R in an easterly direction on Adelaide Avenue in the Australian Capital Territory.

At a point opposite the Prime Minister’s Lodge, it appears that the plaintiff turned right so as to cross the bus lane and enter a paved driveway leading to the entrance to the Prime Minister’s Lodge (‘the Lodge’). Between the driveway and the entrance was the west bound carriageway of Adelaide Avenue. The paved driveway crossed a wide median strip which separated the two carriageways.

The defendant was driving a police motor vehicle in an easterly direction on the same carriageway as the plaintiff but was travelling in the bus lane with emergency lights and sirens activated. It was travelling at high speed. The defendant’s vehicle collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle as it turned.

The impact was one of considerable force. The RAV 4 was lifted into the air and rolled over several times. The plaintiff was seriously injured.

It is her case that, notwithstanding that the defendant’s vehicle was in emergency mode, known as ‘Priority 1’, the defendant had, nevertheless been travelling at an excessive speed so as to be unable to react in time to avoid a collision where a vehicle, at the driveway in question, decided to perform a right hand turn, whether to enter the Lodge or to perform a U-turn.

The defendant’s case was that he was lawfully entitled to use the bus lane in Priority 1 mode and that the plaintiff had, without warning and without heeding the Priority 1 warning lights and sirens, crossed the path of the police vehicle without affording the defendant any reasonable opportunity to avoid colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle.

Alternatively, 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 Spiers v Norman

Details

AGLC: Spiers v Norman [2004] ACTSC 55
Case: [2004] ACTSC 55
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sandra Darlene Spiers sued James Norman for damages resulting from a car accident that occurred on 24 December 2001, on Adelaide Avenue, in the Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiff, Spiers, was driving a RAV 4-wheel drive vehicle, and the defendant, Norman, was driving a police vehicle in emergency mode, also known as 'Priority 1'. Spiers turned sharply into the bus/taxi lane, and the two vehicles collided. Spiers suffered serious injuries, and the court was required to decide whether Norman's excessive speed constituted negligence and, if so, whether Spiers's actions contributed to the accident. The court also needed to determine the appropriate amount of damages to award Spiers.

The court found Norman negligent for driving at an excessive speed in emergency mode, which deprived Spiers of any opportunity to avoid the collision. Although Norman was entitled to use the bus lane in Priority 1 mode, his speed was unreasonably excessive, and he failed to take reasonable care to avoid a collision. The court also found that Spiers did not contribute to the accident, as there was no evidence that she could have seen the approaching police vehicle before committing to the right-hand turn. The court awarded Spiers damages for her injuries, including general damages, interest, out-of-pocket expenses, past loss of earnings, future loss of earnings, and future medical expenses. The total amount awarded was $242,452.30.

Orders