Suzanne Lyons v Clay Fletcher

Case [2012] NSWDC 207


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Suzanne Lyons v Clay Fletcher [2012] NSWDC 207
Hearing dates:3-5 September 2012 (Tamworth)
Decision date: 09 November 2012
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Verdict for the Defendant

Catchwords: Motor vehicle accident; pedestrian; contributory negligence
Legislation Cited: Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999
Civil Liability Act 2002
Cases Cited: Manley v Alexander (2005) 80 ALJR 413
South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd v Cole & Anor (2002) 55 NSWLR 113
Nominal Defendant v Puglisi, High Court of Australia, unreported, 3 August 1984
Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470
Little v Mackellar [2012] NSWCA 331
Stocks v Baldwin (1996) 24 MVR 416
National Insurance Co of New Zealand v Espagne (1961) 105 CLR 569
Adeels Palace Pty Limited v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Suzanne Lyons - Plaintiff
Clay Fletcher - Defendant
Representation: C Hickey - Plaintiff
J Turnbull - Defendant
T Broomfield - Everingham Solomons - Plaintiff
D P Newell - Dibbs Barker - Defendant
File Number(s):10/263346

Judgment

The Plaintiff's Claim

  1. The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries suffered by her when she was a pedestrian crossing from south to north on Gunnedah Road, Tamworth at 12.40am on 21 September 2007. The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant.

  1. The plaintiff, who was born on 26 April 1974, was with two other persons, Stacey Dixon and Jason Dawson. She had entered onto Gunnedah Road at a point where that road was elevated so as to pass over a railway line. There is a walkway on the southern side of Gunnedah Road, and a barrier between the walkway and Gunnedah Road. Gunnedah Road is comprised of two lanes travelling in a generally westerly direction, a concrete median strip and two lanes travelling in a generally easterly direction.

  1. The plaintiff had crossed both westbound lanes, the median strip and the lane closest to the median strip for traffic travelling east. The defendant was travelling east. As he approached the area where his vehicle struck the plaintiff, he was travelling up an incline and approaching a roundabout at the intersection of Gunnedah Road and Duri Street that was well lit. He looked down at his dashboard to determine whether his driving lights were off, and did not see the plaintiff prior to his vehicle colliding with her. Following the impact he did not stop, but continued his journey into Tamworth and then reported the matter to the Police.

  1. The plaintiff sustained very serious injuries.

Evidence as to the Circumstances of the Accident

  1. The plaintiff had no recollection of the circumstances of the accident. Her last recollection before being injured was at her son's football match the previous weekend. Her next recollection was being in hospital.

  1. Stacey Dixon gave evidence that she had spent part of that day and evening with the plaintiff and Jason Dawson. During the evening they had been at Mr Dawson's mother's house and had decided to walk to the plaintiff's home,…

Continue reading Suzanne Lyons v Clay Fletcher

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Suzanne Lyons v Clay Fletcher [2012] NSWDC 207
Case
[2012] NSWDC 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Suzanne Lyons brought an action against Clay Fletcher in the District Court of New South Wales seeking damages for injuries she suffered in a motor vehicle accident. Ms Lyons alleged that Mr Fletcher, while driving his vehicle, collided with her as she crossed a road, resulting in significant physical and psychological injuries. Mr Fletcher denied liability, arguing that Ms Lyons was contributorily negligent in crossing the road without due care. The court was required to determine whether Mr Fletcher was negligent in causing the accident and, if so, whether Ms Lyons' contributory negligence, if any, mitigated the damages she could recover.

The court found that Mr Fletcher was negligent in that he failed to observe Ms Lyons as she crossed the road and did not take reasonable steps to avoid the collision. However, it was also determined that Ms Lyons was contributorily negligent in crossing the road without checking for oncoming traffic, despite the presence of a pedestrian crossing. Given that Ms Lyons’ contributory negligence was equal to Mr Fletcher’s, the court applied the principles of contributory negligence, which resulted in her claim being barred entirely. The court found that since Ms Lyons' negligence was equal to that of Mr Fletcher, she could not recover any damages.

The court delivered its verdict in favour of Mr Fletcher, dismissing Ms Lyons’ claim in its entirety. The court held that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff absolved the defendant of liability for damages. The final order of the court was that the defendant’s defence of contributory negligence was successful, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The defendant was absolved of all liability for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict for the Defendant

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.