Steed v McDougall

Case [2019] ACTSC 36

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Steed v McDougall

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 36

Hearing Dates:

10 – 12 September 2018

DecisionDate:

22 February 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

(a)  Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $478,561.77.

(b)  The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – Motor vehicle accident – collision between motor vehicle emerging from driveway and postal motorcyclist – whether defendant breached duty of care – whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent – calculation of damages

Legislation Cited:

Australian Road Rules, rr 13, 74, 75, 288, 296

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 42 – 46.
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT) s 32

Cases Cited:

Baker v Mackenzie [2015] ACTSC 272; 72 MVR 421

Derrick v Cheung [2001] HCA 48; 181 ALR 301
Dungan v Chan [2013] NSWCA 182; 64 MVR 249
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438; 55 ALJR 562
Goreski v de Costa [2014] ACTSC 233
Hendricks v El Dik (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 160; 76 MVR 310
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kollas v Scurrah [2008] NSWCA 17; 49 MVR 437
Marien v Gardiner [2013] NSWCA 396; 66 MVR 1
McClean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
NSW v Fahy [2007] HCA 20; 232 CLR 486
Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121
Penrith City Council v East Realisations Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] NSWCA 64; 63 MVR 180
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Sibley v Kais (1967) 118 CLR 424
Sharpe v Gordon [2006] NSWCA 347
Stocks & McDonald Hamilton Co Pty Ltd v Baldwin (1996) 24 MVR 416
Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA 128; 70 MVR 484
Wade v Allsop (1976) 10 ALR 353

Warth v Lafsky [2014] NSWCA 94; 66 MVR 445

Parties:

Trevor Steed (Plaintiff)

Joshua McDougall (First Defendant)

Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance (ABN 11 000 016 722) (Second Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr A Black SC and Mr D Crowe (Plaintiff)

Mr K Rewell SC (Defendants)

Solicitors

Maurice Blackburn (Plaintiff)

Moray and Agnew (Defendants)

File Number:

SC 260 of 2017

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff is a 53 year old man. As at July 2014, he had been employed by Australia Post for 25 years. He was a postman delivering mail while riding on a small motorbike. On 24 July 2014, the plaintiff, then aged 48, was working. He finished his first postal run at about 10:00am. He then went to collect additional mail for delivery. Subsequently, he rode along Mannheim Street in Kambah, where he delivered mail. After that delivery, he rode a short way down the footpath. At that time, the first defendant was reversing his Toyota Supra Motor Vehicle (the Supra) out of a driveway which crossed the path the plaintiff was riding on. There was a collision between…

Continue reading Steed v McDougall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Steed v McDougall [2019] ACTSC 36
Case
[2019] ACTSC 36
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Steed v McDougall involved the plaintiff, a motorcyclist employed by Australia Post, who sued the defendant for injuries sustained in a collision with the defendant's vehicle. The incident occurred when the defendant's car emerged from a driveway and collided with the plaintiff's motorcycle. The plaintiff claimed damages for the injuries and losses he suffered due to the accident. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant breached their duty of care to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Additionally, the court had to calculate the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The primary issue was whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and if so, whether the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the accident, potentially reducing the damages recoverable.

The court found that the defendant breached their duty of care by failing to properly check for oncoming traffic before exiting the driveway. The plaintiff was found not to be contributorily negligent, as he was travelling at a reasonable speed and had the right of way. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses. The total amount of damages was calculated to be $478,561.77. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

This decision highlights the importance of exercising caution when exiting a driveway, particularly when it intersects with a road where oncoming traffic may be present. The court emphasised the need for drivers to be vigilant and to yield to vehicles with the right of way, especially in situations involving vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder for all drivers to remain aware of their surroundings and to take all necessary precautions to avoid accidents, particularly when exiting driveways or intersections.

Orders

Orders of the court

(a) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $478,561.77.

(b) The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

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.