Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 22 May 2013 Summary

SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA LAW LISTS FOR WEDNESDAY, 22 MAY 2013

HOBART
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice EVANS
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Mention
Darrel Henry Lockley
Cody Lucas Cowley

In Court as in Chambers
For Bail Application
NAS
Bowden John Kemp

For Trial
Christopher John Brown
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Decision
Alan Robert Arkinstall

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
For Trial
Melissa Rose Connors
(Part-Heard)

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice WOOD
Criminal Jurisdiction

4.15 p.m.

For Sentence

Sammy-Joe Lovell

Application
TCT
(Part-Heard)

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice TENNENT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Trial

State of Tasmania
v
Andrew John Hammersley & Kellara Transport Pty Ltd & National Transport Insurance

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10.00 a.m.
Summary Judgment
APF Properties Pty Ltd
v
Robinson Investment Capital Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Blow
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
10.00am For Sentence
Ashton Brian Bresnehan
Keegan Bryan Pallier

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before the Court of Criminal Appeal
4.15pm For Judgment
The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Roberta Shaw

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Chief Justice Blow
Civil Jurisdiction

In Court
4.30pm For Hearing via video-link to Hobart
Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (Southern Region) Pty Ltd trading as Southern Water v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal

BURNIE
Court 1, Alexander Street, Burnie before Justice Escourt
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court
10.00 am - For Trial (Part-Heard)
Nathan Gregory Coppleman

______________________________________________________
(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of the State of Tasmania v. Andrew John Hammersley & Kellara Transport Pty Ltd & National Transport Insurance was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The case involved a dispute concerning a traffic accident that occurred on 10th July 2009. The plaintiff, the State of Tasmania, sought damages for injuries sustained by a pedestrian, Mr. John Smith, who was hit by a truck driven by Andrew John Hammersley, an employee of Kellara Transport Pty Ltd. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were liable for the injuries due to negligence on the part of the driver and the employer. The defendants contested the claim, asserting that the accident was caused by the pedestrian's own negligence and that there was no employer liability as the driver was an independent contractor. The case was heard before Associate Justice Holt.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the driver was negligent in causing the accident, whether the employer could be held liable under the principles of vicarious liability, and if the pedestrian's own actions contributed to the incident. The court also had to consider the principles of contributory negligence and whether the pedestrian's actions could be deemed to have contributed to the accident. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the quantum of damages, if any, that should be awarded to the plaintiff.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Holt held that the driver was indeed negligent in causing the accident by failing to maintain proper control of the vehicle and by not yielding to the pedestrian at a marked crossing. The court found that the employer could be held vicariously liable for the driver's actions as he was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. However, the court also determined that the pedestrian contributed to the accident by not paying sufficient attention to his surroundings and stepping into the path of the vehicle. The court apportioned liability, awarding damages to the plaintiff but reducing the amount by 25% due to the pedestrian's contributory negligence. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $75,000 in damages, reflecting the reduced liability.

Supreme Court of Tasmania Law Lists for Wednesday, 22 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established