SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Stafford v Carrigy-Ryan & Anor |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2014] ACTCA 27 |
Hearing Date: | 14 May 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 27 August 2014 |
Before: | Penfold, Burns and Jagot JJ |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed, with costs. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | PERSONAL INJURY – motor vehicle accident – driver and passenger plaintiff intoxicated by alcohol – extent to which plaintiff was aware of driver’s level of intoxication – contributory negligence – delayed complaint of injury to cervical spine – whether appellant withdrew from the enterprise APPEAL – appeal from a single judge – whether reduction in damages for contributory negligence had been correctly assessed – whether award should have been made for future loss of earning capacity – whether further evidence should have been admitted – whether award for gratuitous assistance was inadequate – appeal dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Australian Capital Territory v Crowley [2012] ACTA 52 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No. 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529 |
Parties: | Aaron Lot Stafford (Appellant) Andrew Carrigy-Ryan (First Respondent) QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited ACN 003 191 035 (Second Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr G Stretton SC (Appellant) Mr K Rewell SC (Respondents) |
| Solicitors Colquhoun Murphy Lawyers (Appellant) Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Respondents) | |
File Numbers: | ACTCA 58 of 2013; SC 592 of 2011 |
Decision Under Appeal: | Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Acting Justice Sidis Date of Decision: 4 July 2013 Citation: [2013] ACTSC 99 |
THE COURT:
The appellant was the passenger in a motor vehicle driven by the first respondent on 25 October 2008 when it failed to negotiate a corner on Corin Road, ran off the road and overturned several times. The appellant suffered injuries in the accident, although the extent of those injuries was a matter of dispute. The appellant and the first respondent had consumed alcohol together from about 5:30 or 6 pm on 24 October until approximately 1 am on 25 October, about 1.5 hours before the accident.
A blood sample taken from the first respondent 2 hours after the accident revealed a reading of 0.155 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. In the course of the hearing before the primary judge the appellant attempted to minimise the amount of alcohol he and the first respondent consumed prior to the accident, but there was independent evidence that by midnight on 24 October 2008 they were both “quite drunk”, and that after the accident they both smelled of beer and appeared to be still intoxicated.…
Continue reading Stafford v Carrigy-Ryan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Stafford v Carrigy-Ryan [2014] ACTCA 27
- Case
- [2014] ACTCA 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the reduction in damages for contributory negligence had been correctly assessed by the trial judge, whether an award for future loss of earning capacity should have been made, and whether further evidence should have been admitted on appeal. Additionally, the court considered whether the award for gratuitous assistance provided to the plaintiff was inadequate.
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the single judge. The reasoning focused on the assessment of contributory negligence, finding that the reduction in damages was appropriate given the plaintiff's awareness of the driver's intoxication and the inherent risks associated with such a situation. The court also addressed the other grounds of appeal, concluding that no error had been made in relation to the award for future loss of earning capacity, the refusal to admit further evidence, or the assessment of damages for gratuitous assistance.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
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.