Territory and Ors

Case [2007] ACTSC 38


MATTHEW JAMES TRAYNOR (by his next friend PETER TRAYNOR) v
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY and OTHERS

LINDA TRAYNOR and OTHERS v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL
TERRITORY and OTHERS
[2007] ACTSC 38 (18 June 2007)

NEGLIGENCE – motor accident – cyclist collides with car – tree planted by public authority obscures view of bike path – motorist has no opportunity to avoid accident.

Civil Law (Wrongs)Act 2002

Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1989 (Cth)

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Vairy v Wyong ShireCouncil [2005] HCA 62, (2005) 223 CLR 422

New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20

The Council of the Shire of Wyong v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

Brodie v Singleton ShireCouncil [2001] HCA 29, (2001) 206 CLR 512

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Latham v Ferguson [2006] NSWCA 288

McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199

No. SC 307 of 1999
No. SC 418 of 2002

Judge:     Connolly J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:      18 June 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SC 307 of 1999
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )  

BETWEEN:MATTHEW JAMES TRAYNOR (by

his next friend PETER TRAYNOR)

Plaintiff

AND:AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

First Defendant

AND:JOSE ALFREDO GUEVARA

Second Defendant

AND:COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Third Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Connolly J
Date:  18 June 2007
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. There be judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,748,706.83 plus costs.

  1. There be judgment for the second and third defendants.

  1. The parties be heard on the costs of the second and third defendants.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SC 418 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )  

BETWEEN:LINDA TRAYNOR

First Plaintiff

AND:PETER TRAYNOR

Second Plaintiff

AND:SHAUN TRAYNOR

Third Plaintiff

AND:AUSTRALIAN CAPITAY TERRITORY

First Defendant

AND:JOSE ALFREDO GUEVARA

Second Defendant

AND:COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Third Party

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. There be judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $237,514.99 inclusive of costs.

  1. There be judgment for the second defendant.

  2. The parties be heard on the costs of the second defendant and third party.

  1. These actions arise from a tragic motor vehicle accident that occurred late on a Saturday afternoon on 24 August 1996 in Bonython in the Australian Capital Territory.  Matthew Traynor, then an 11 year old boy, had been out with his friend, Aaron Oakman, riding their mountain bikes around a hill in a nearby reserve.  As they were returning to their homes, they followed a path that lead downhill and in a generally easterly direction from the hill reserve to a children’s play area, and then down to a point where the path intersected with a road, Bardolph Street.  Throughout these reasons I will refer to this as the bike path, because that is how it was subsequently shown in an ACT Government publication “Canberra Cycleways”.  Strictly, it is a shared use path, available to pedestrians, cyclists, and persons using wheelchairs or…

Continue reading Territory and Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Territory and Ors [2007] ACTSC 38
Case
[2007] ACTSC 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs were involved in a collision with a car driven by the first defendant, who was employed by the second defendant. The collision occurred when the car struck the plaintiffs as they were riding bicycles on a designated bike path. The plaintiffs alleged that the accident was caused by the defendant's negligence in failing to see them due to a tree planted by the third defendant, a public authority, which obscured the view of the bike path. The court had to determine whether the third defendant was negligent in planting the tree and whether the first defendant was negligent in failing to avoid the accident. The court found that the third defendant was not negligent in planting the tree as it was a reasonable precaution, but the first defendant was negligent in failing to see the plaintiffs due to the obscured view. The court held that the first defendant was liable for the plaintiffs' damages. The court awarded the plaintiffs a total of $1,748,706.83 in damages plus costs. The second defendant was found not liable as it was not vicariously liable for the first defendant's negligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

There be judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,748,706.83 plus 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.