Vale v Eggins

Case [2006] NSWCA 348
Reported Decision: (2006) Aust Torts Reports 81-869

Court of Appeal


CITATION: Thomas William Vale v Timothy David Eggins [2006] NSWCA 348
HEARING DATE(S): 17 October 2006
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
11 December 2006
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; McColl JA at 31; Bryson JA at 32
DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Verdict and judgment and order for costs in favour of the respondent given in the Court below set aside; 3. Verdict and judgment for the appellant in the sum of $925,000 together with interest calculated from the date of trial; 4. Direct the parties to file and serve written submissions on costs by Wednesday 13 December 2006.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE – appellant struck by motor vehicle driven by respondent – appellant “stumbling” across roadway – whether respondent negligent in increasing speed on approaching appellant – reasonable steps required to react to danger of appellant’s presence on roadway – whether trial judge erred in breaking events down into phases - NEGLIGENCE – Civil Liability Act – construction of s 49 – does not deny duty of care or liability for damages toward intoxicated person – does not lower standard of care owed to intoxicated person – does not incorporate s 50 of Civil Liability Act - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – appellant intoxicated at time of injury – trial judge’s finding of 75% contributory negligence upheld
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 49, 49(1)(a), 49(1)(b), 49(1)(c), 50
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
CASES CITED: Leishman v Thomas (1957) 75 WN NSW 173
Manley v Alexander (2005) 80 ALJR 413; [2005] HCA 79
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Limited (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552; [2003] HCA 34
PARTIES: Thomas William Vale (Appellant)
Timothy David Eggins (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40967/05
COUNSEL: L T Grey (Appellant)
K Rewell SC; M Cleary (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: McClellands Lawyers (Appellant)
TL Lawyers (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 84 of 2004
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibson DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 9 December 2005

- 30 -


                          CA 40967/05

                          BEAZLEY JA
                          McCOLL JA
                          BRYSON JA

                          11 December 2006
THOMAS WILLIAM VALE v TIMOTHY DAVID EGGINS
Headnote

Facts

The appellant sustained serious injuries after being struck on Anzac Parade, Chifley, by a motor vehicle driven by the respondent. The appellant had been “stumbling” across the roadway in the direction of the lane in which the respondent was driving when, having appeared to have seen the respondent approaching, he turned and stumbled away from the respondent’s line of travel. However seconds before impact the appellant, without warning, turned and “quickly stumbled” back towards the lane in which the respondent was driving.

Proceedings were brought by the appellant against the respondent and were dismissed in the District Court of New South Wales. The appellant appealed against that dismissal, on the ground that the trial judge erred in restricting her determination as to whether the respondent was negligent to the manner…

Continue reading Vale v Eggins

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vale v Eggins [2006] NSWCA 348
Case
[2006] NSWCA 348
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Vale v Eggins*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal from a judgment concerning a negligence claim where the appellant was struck by a motor vehicle driven by the respondent. The appellant had been "stumbling" across the roadway at the time of the incident.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the respondent was negligent in increasing speed when approaching the appellant, the reasonable steps required of the respondent to react to the appellant's presence on the roadway, and whether the trial judge had erred in dividing the events into distinct phases. Additionally, the Court was required to interpret section 49 of the *Civil Liability Act* (NSW) concerning its application to intoxicated persons, specifically whether it denied a duty of care or liability for damages, lowered the standard of care owed, or incorporated section 50 of the Act. The appeal also concerned the trial judge's finding of 75% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, who was intoxicated at the time of the injury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in her approach to the assessment of negligence and contributory negligence. It held that section 49 of the *Civil Liability Act* did not deny a duty of care or liability for damages towards an intoxicated person, nor did it lower the standard of care owed to such a person, and it did not incorporate section 50 of the Act. The Court determined that the respondent had been negligent and that the appellant had also been contributorily negligent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the verdict, judgment, and costs order in favour of the respondent. A verdict and judgment were entered for the appellant in the sum of $925,000, plus interest. The parties were directed to file written submissions on costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed; 2. Verdict and judgment and order for costs in favour of the respondent given in the Court below set aside; 3. Verdict and judgment for the appellant in the sum of $925,000 together with interest calculated from the date of trial; 4. Direct the parties to file and serve written submissions on costs by Wednesday 13 December 2006.

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.