Stove v Hall

Case [2008] ACTCA 21

JEFFREY JOHN STOVE & ANOR v MICHAEL SHEANE HALL
[2008] ACTCA 21 (19 December 2008)

TORTS – negligence – contributory negligence – collision between respondent’s motor vehicle and second appellant’s truck in roundabout – challenge to trial judge’s finding as to lane markings – whether insufficient weight given to sign on truck warning not to overtake – whether speed of vehicle challenged in cross-examination – whether truck’s movement into vehicle’s lane unavoidable in view of size of truck
Held: trial judge did not err in concluding respondent not guilty of contributory negligence.

TORTS – negligence – awards for economic loss – whether trial judge awarded damages for loss of earning capacity without considering whether diminution in earning capacity was or may be productive of financial loss – whether trial judge chose incorrect starting figure or made insufficient discount having regard to work history of respondent
Held: trial judge’s award for past economic loss manifestly excessive – trial judge’s award for future economic loss not manifestly excessive.

TORTS – negligence – trial judge’s reasons for rejection of medical evidence – whether sufficient

Held: trial judge’s reasons sufficient.

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) Pt 2A, s 37N, s 37O

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Boyd v Leftwich (1982) 43 ALR 280
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 72 SASR 361
Cullen v Trappell (1980) 146 CLR 1
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 271
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Hall v Stove [2007] ACTSC 75
Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349; 85 ALR 23
Medlin v The State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Purcell v Watson (1979) 26 ALR 235
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 37 - 2007
No. SC 340 of 2003

Judges:        Higgins CJ, Penfold and Besanko JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           19 December 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 37 - 2007
  )          No. SC 340 of  2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: JEFFREY JOHN STOVE

First Appellant

LLEWELLYN ROBB

Second Appellant

AND: MICHAEL SHEANE HALL

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Penfold and Besanko JJ
Date:  19 December 2008
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be allowed.

  1. The orders made by the trial judge be set aside and in lieu thereof (and with effect from the date of the trial judge’s judgment) there be orders as follows:

(1)      Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $546,690.00.

(2)      Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $140,972.00.

IN THE SUPREME…

Continue reading Stove v Hall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stove v Hall [2008] ACTCA 21
Case
[2008] ACTCA 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, constituted by Higgins CJ, Penfold and Besanko JJ, heard an appeal concerning a motor vehicle collision in a roundabout between the respondent's motor vehicle and a truck driven by the second appellant. The primary dispute involved allegations of negligence and contributory negligence, with challenges raised regarding the trial judge's findings on lane markings, the weight given to a warning sign on the truck, the speed of the respondent's vehicle, and whether the truck's movement into the respondent's lane was unavoidable due to its size.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in finding the respondent not guilty of contributory negligence. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge had awarded damages for loss of earning capacity without adequately assessing whether the diminution in earning capacity would likely result in financial loss, and whether an incorrect starting figure or insufficient discount had been applied to the respondent's work history in calculating past economic loss. The sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons for rejecting certain medical evidence was also a point of contention.

The Full Court held that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence. However, it found the trial judge's award for past economic loss to be manifestly excessive, while the award for future economic loss was not considered manifestly excessive. The court also found the trial judge's reasons for rejecting medical evidence to be sufficient. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the trial judge's original orders were set aside. New orders were made, entering judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $546,690.00 and against the second defendant in the sum of $140,972.00, effective from the date of the trial judge's original judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders made by the trial judge be set aside and in lieu thereof (and with effect from the date of the trial judge's judgment) there be orders as follows:

(1) Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $546,690.00.

(2) Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $140,972.00.

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.