DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Veyt v Stevenson & Anor [2015] QDC 84
PARTIES:
GILBERT THEOPHIEL RAPHAEL VEYT
(plaintiff)
v
LYLE STEVENSON
(first defendant)
and
QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
(ABN 78 003 191 035)(second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
D118/13
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Southport
DELIVERED ON:
21 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
10, 11, 12 March 2015
JUDGE:
R S Jones DCJ
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $109,628.00
2. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of
the proceedingCATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT – where plaintiff injured overtaking truck driven by first defendant – where first defendant moved into passing lane occupied by plaintiff to avoid cyclist – where plaintiff lost control of his motorcycle avoiding truck driven by first defendant – whether truck driven by first defendant struck plaintiff – whether accident caused by negligence of first defendant – whether accident caused by negligence of plaintiff – whether plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence in failing to exercise due care and attention as following vehicle.
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – QUANTUM – where plaintiff suffered a number of serious but non-life threatening injuries – where plaintiff claimed damages for general damages, special damages, gratuitous and paid care and past and future economic loss – application of Civil Liability Act 2003 and Civil Liability Regulation 2003 – nature and extent of dominant injury – where plaintiff had pre-existing heart condition – where evidence of economic loss imprecise.
Civil Liability Act 2003
Civil Liability Regulation 2003
Civil Liability Regulation 2014
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Allwood v Wilson & Anor [2011] QSC 180
Curtis v Harden Shire Council [2014] NSW CA
Freeleagus v Nominal Defendant [2007] QCA 116
Garzo v Liverpool/Campbelltown Christian School [2012] NSWCA 151
Land v Dhaliwal & Anor [2012] QSC 360
Nucifora & Anor v AAI LTD [2013] QSC 338
Rains v Frost Enterprises Pty Ltd [1975] Qd R 287
Reardon-Smith v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2007] QCA 211
Shaw v Menzies and Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2010] QSC 390
Smith v Body Corporate for Professional Suites Community Title Scheme 14487 [2013] QCA 80
Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5
Vos v Hawkswell & Anor [2010] QCA 92
Wolters v The University of the Sunshine Coast [2012] QSC 298
Wolters v The University of the Sunshine Cost [2013] QCA 228
COUNSEL:
Mr C Newton for the plaintiff
Mr T Matthews QC with Mrs C Job for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:
Gall Standfield and Smith for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy for the second defendant
This proceeding was concerned with a claim for damages in negligence by the plaintiff against the first defendant. The second defendant is the insurer of the first defendant. For the reasons set out below the orders of the court are:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $109,628.00;
2. The second defendant pay…
Continue reading Veyt v Stevenson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Veyt v Stevenson [2015] QDC 84
- Case
- [2015] QDC 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the legal issues regarding the duty of care owed by both parties, and whether the accident was caused by Stevenson's negligence, Veyt's negligence, or both. The court also had to consider the quantum of damages to be awarded to Veyt, taking into account the Civil Liability Act 2003 and Civil Liability Regulation 2003. The court had to assess the nature and extent of Veyt's injuries, his pre-existing heart condition, and the evidence of economic loss.
The court found that Stevenson was negligent in moving into the passing lane, which caused Veyt to lose control of his motorcycle and collide with the truck. The court also found that Veyt was not guilty of contributory negligence in failing to exercise due care and attention. The court awarded Veyt general damages, special damages, gratuitous and paid care, and past and future economic loss. The court ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $109,628.00, and that the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $109,628.00
2. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of
the proceeding
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.