Taylor v Hall - [2020] NSWDC 321

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Taylor v Hall [2020] NSWDC 321
Hearing dates: 5-8, 11 May and 12 June 2020
Date of orders: 2 July 2020
Decision date: 02 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Smith SC, DCJ
Decision:
1. Verdict for the defendant with costs.

Catchwords:
TORTS – Negligence – Motor vehicle accident – duty of care – joint illegal enterprise – illegal street race – voluntary assumption of risk

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 351B
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 126, 131, 140
Road Transport Act2013 (NSW), ss 115, 117

Cases Cited:
Bevan v Coolahan [2019] NSWCA 217
Carey v Lake Macquarie City Council [2007] NSWCA 4
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Adams Bidco Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 34
Director of Public Prosecutions v Belani (2005) 64 NSWLR 319
Giorgianni v R (1985) 156 CLR 473
Il v The Queen (2017) 262 CLR 268
Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510
In the matter of Jimmy’s Recipe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 632
Miller v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ashley June Taylor – Plaintiff
Daniel John Hall - Defendant
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Goodridge – Plaintiff
Mr Fitzsimmons SC - Defendant
Solicitors:
Firths – Plaintiff
Hall & Wilcox – Defendant

File Number(s): 2019/104589
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

In the early morning of 5 April 2016 the plaintiff was travelling as a passenger in the front of the defendant’s car on a road between Aberdeen and Muswellbrook. The car was travelling at more than 170 km/h. The defendant lost control of the car and it collided with two trees on the side of the road. The plaintiff was injured as a result of that collision. She claims that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident and the loss she suffered as a result of the accident and seeks an order for damages.
The defendant says that he did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because the plaintiff was part of a joint illegal enterprise, namely, participating in an illegal race, and was complicit in the dangerous driving of the defendant’s vehicle and in the driving of a motor vehicle on a road furiously, recklessly or at speed or in a manner dangerous to the public. He argues in the alternative that the claim must fail because she was a willing participant in a street race and so voluntarily accepted the risk involved in that race.
The defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care and, in any event, she voluntarily accepted the risk involved in an illegal race engaged in by the defendant. Her claims must be rejected. The following are the reasons for that conclusion.

Credibility

There were three people in the vehicle when it crashed: the plaintiff, the defendant, who was driving, and Gregory O’Brien who was sitting in the back seat on the driver’s side. Each gave evidence about the accident and the events leading up to it. It is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Taylor v Hall

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Hall [2020] NSWDC 321
Case: [2020] NSWDC 321
Decision Date: 02 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v Hall was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Taylor, sought damages from the defendant, Hall, following a motor vehicle accident that occurred during an illegal street race. The plaintiff claimed that Hall's negligence, specifically his failure to exercise reasonable care while driving, resulted in the collision and subsequent injuries. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by participating in the illegal street race and, as such, could not recover damages for the injuries sustained.

The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether Hall owed a duty of care to Taylor in the context of an illegal street race. The court considered whether the illegality of the joint enterprise negated any duty of care between the parties. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff's voluntary assumption of risk in participating in the illegal race absolved the defendant of any liability for the injuries caused by his alleged negligence.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the illegal nature of the street race precluded the existence of a duty of care between the parties. The court reasoned that the illegality of the joint enterprise fundamentally altered the legal landscape, removing any basis upon which a duty of care could be founded. Furthermore, the court found that Taylor's voluntary assumption of risk by participating in the illegal race was a complete defence to the claim for damages. The court concluded that by engaging in an activity that was inherently risky and unlawful, Taylor had assumed the risk of any injuries that might result from such participation. Consequently, the court found in favour of the defendant, dismissing Taylor's claim for damages and awarding costs to Hall.

The court ordered that the defendant was to be awarded costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict for the defendant 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Taylor v Hall [2020] NSWDC 321
Hearing dates:	5-8, 11 May and 12 June 2020
Date of orders:	2 July 2020
Decision date:	02 July 2020
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Smith SC, DCJ
Decision:	1. Verdict for the defendant with costs.
Catchwords:	TORTS – Negligence – Motor vehicle accident – duty of care – joint illegal enterprise – illegal street race – voluntary assumption of risk
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 351B Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 126, 131, 140 Road Transport Act2013 (NSW), ss 115, 117
Cases Cited:	Bevan v Coolahan [2019] NSWCA 217 Carey v Lake Macquarie City Council [2007] NSWCA 4 Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Adams Bidco Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 34 Director of Public Prosecutions v Belani (2005) 64 NSWLR 319 Giorgianni v R (1985) 156 CLR 473 Il v The Queen (2017) 262 CLR 268 Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510 In the matter of Jimmy’s Recipe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 632 Miller v Miller (2011) 242 CLR 446
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ashley June Taylor – Plaintiff Daniel John Hall - Defendant
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Goodridge – Plaintiff Mr Fitzsimmons SC - Defendant Solicitors: Firths – Plaintiff Hall & Wilcox – Defendant
File Number(s):	2019/104589
Publication restriction:	Nil