THOMPSON v ROXBURGH - [2005] WADC 90

THOMPSON -v- ROXBURGH [2005] WADC 90

Last Update: 23/05/2005

THOMPSON -v- ROXBURGH [2005] WADC 90
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WADC 90
Case No:	CIV:2553/2003	Heard:	2 MAY 2005
Coram:	MULLER DCJ	Delivered:	17/05/2005
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's claim dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	SUSAN THOMPSON ANGELA ROXBURGH
Catchwords:	Fatal Accidents Act Failure of deceased motorist to stop at stop sign Collision with motorist travelling on main road towards intersesction where stop sign located Whether other motorist negligent in failing to anticipate deceased entering intersection without stopping
Legislation:	Fatal Accidents Act, s 6(1)(b)
Case References:	James v Williams [2003] SASC 220 March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd & Anor (1991) 171 CLR 506 Stoeckel v Harpas (1971) 1 SASR 172 Walton v Rowbottom, unreported; SCSA; No 9362; 17 September 1986 Anikin v Sierra [2004] HCA 64 McLean v Tedman & Anor (1984) 115 CLR 306 Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : THOMPSON -v- ROXBURGH [2005] WADC 90 CORAM : MULLER DCJ HEARD : 2 MAY 2005 DELIVERED : 17 MAY 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 2553 of 2003 BETWEEN : SUSAN THOMPSON

Plaintiff

AND

ANGELA ROXBURGH

Defendant

Catchwords:

Fatal Accidents Act - Failure of deceased motorist to stop at stop sign - Collision with motorist travelling on main road towards intersection where stop sign located - Whether other motorist negligent in failing to anticipate deceased entering intersection without stopping

Legislation:

Fatal Accidents Act, s 6(1)(b)

Result:

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr R W Richardson

Defendant : Mr T Lampropoulos

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bradley & Bayly

Defendant : Simon Walters

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

James v Williams [2003] SASC 220
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd & Anor (1991) 171 CLR 506
Stoeckel v Harpas (1971) 1 SASR 172
Walton v Rowbottom, unreported; SCt of SA; Library No 9362; 17 September 1986

Case(s) also cited:

Anikin v Sierra [2004] HCA 64
McLean v Tedman & Anor (1984) 115 CLR 306
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10

(Page 3)

1 MULLER DCJ: This is an action brought by the plaintiff pursuant to s 6(1)(b) of the Fatal Accidents Act for damages arising out of the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Weaber Plain Road and Stock Route Road in the Kununurra area on 19 June 2003. The action was confined to the issue of liability.

2 The intersection in question is approximately 15 kilometres north of Kununurra. Weaber Plain Road is a main road with a bitumen surface running north from Kununurra. Stock Route Road is a minor road that intersects with Weaber Plain Road. The surface of Stock Route Road changes at the intersection. On the eastern side of Weaber Plain Road the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read THOMPSON v ROXBURGH and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] WADC 90
Decision Date: 17 MAY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v Roxburgh involved a fatal collision between two vehicles, one driven by the deceased, Thompson, and the other by Roxburgh. The dispute centred around whether Roxburgh was negligent in failing to anticipate Thompson's entry into an intersection where a stop sign was located. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The court was required to determine if Roxburgh was negligent in failing to anticipate Thompson's entry into the intersection, and whether this failure contributed to the collision. The primary legal issue was whether Roxburgh had a duty of care to anticipate Thompson's potential non-compliance with traffic regulations and whether this duty was breached. The court also had to consider the statutory provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act in assessing the claim.

The court found that Roxburgh was not negligent in failing to anticipate Thompson's entry into the intersection. The court held that Roxburgh was driving within the speed limit and had no reason to suspect that Thompson would not stop at the stop sign. The court reasoned that Roxburgh's actions were reasonable and did not constitute a breach of the duty of care owed to Thompson. The court further held that the statutory provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act did not impose a higher standard of care on Roxburgh. Therefore, the court dismissed Thompson's claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

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.