Veyt v Stevenson

Case [2015] QDC 84


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 proceeding

CATCHWORDS:

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

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Veyt v Stevenson [2015] QDC 84
Case
[2015] QDC 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Veyt v Stevenson, the plaintiff, Veyt, was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving the first defendant, Stevenson, who was driving a truck. Veyt was overtaking the truck when Stevenson moved into the passing lane to avoid a cyclist. Veyt lost control of his motorcycle as a result of trying to avoid the truck, and subsequently collided with it. The dispute centred on whether the accident was caused by the negligence of Stevenson, whether Veyt was negligent in failing to exercise due care and attention, and if so, whether this was contributory negligence.

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.