Negligence - Road accident cases - Duty of care - Consolidated actions - Stationary rubbish truck struck from behind by car - Early morning sun over road - Whether truck driver or local authority negligent in having truck on road - Whether driver of car failed to keep proper lookout - Whether truck driver required to wear seatbelt - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Neither defendant in Action No 1037 of 2002 negligent
Defendant in Action No 1941 of 2001 negligent

Representation:

CIV 1037 of 2002

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr I Viner QC & Mr J I Cooke
First Defendant             :     Mr D R Clyne
Second Defendant         :     Mr D R Sands

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     D'Angelo & Partners
First Defendant             :     Simon Walters
Second Defendant         :     Talbot & Olivier

CIV 1941 of 2001

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr D R Clyne
Defendant: Mr R I Viner QC & Mr J I Cooke

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Simon Walters
Defendant: D'Angelo & Partners

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

Bomford v Commissioner of Main Roads (2000) 32 MVR 201
Edith Cowan University v Czatryko [2002] WASCA 334
Maiolo v Hansen (1989) 10 MVR 200
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Romeo v Conservation Commission (NT) (1998) 192 CLR 431
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Waverley Municipal Council v Swain [2003] NSWCA 61
White v Humphries (1984) 1 MVR 426
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

Case(s) also cited:

Barclay Oysters v Ryan (2003) A Tort Rep 81-681
Przetak v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust and Melville Road Board (1961) WAR 2
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 76 ALJR 483

MACKNAY DCJ:

Introduction

This was a trial of liability only in respect of two actions for damages for personal injury, each with a different plaintiff and defendant(s), which had been directed to be tried concurrently as to liability by an order of a Registrar.
I was informed that the action given primary status was No 1037 of 2002, in which the plaintiff is Mark Irvine Wynne, and the defendants Roger Kim Pilbeam and the City of Stirling.
The other action is No 1941 of 2001, in which the plaintiff is Roger Kim Pilbeam and the defendant Mark Wynne.
As was done in the interlocutory documents and at trial I shall henceforth for convenience describe Mr Wynne as the "plaintiff", Mr Pilbeam as the "first defendant", and the City of Stirling as the "second defendant".

Accident

I will first set out matters which are either common ground or about which findings…

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.

Continue reading Wynne v Pilbeam

Details

AGLC: Wynne v Pilbeam [2003] WADC 258
Case: [2003] WADC 258
Decision Date: 25 NOVEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wynne v Pilbeam, decided by the Supreme Court of Queensland, involved a dispute between two motor vehicle accident claimants, Wynne and Pilbeam. Both parties sought compensation for injuries sustained in a collision in which a stationary rubbish truck was struck from behind by a car. The truck was positioned on the side of the road at dawn, with the sun low in the sky causing glare. Wynne and Pilbeam, who were both passengers in the car, alleged negligence against both the driver of the truck and the local authority responsible for the rubbish truck, as well as against the driver of the car for failing to maintain a proper lookout. The central legal issues before the court were whether the truck driver or the local authority was negligent in placing the truck on the road and whether the driver of the car failed to keep a proper lookout. Additionally, the court considered whether the truck driver was required to wear a seatbelt, although this was ultimately found to be irrelevant to the outcome.

The court held that the local authority and the truck driver were not negligent in placing the truck on the road, as they had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the truck and its contents. The court found that the truck driver had positioned the truck in accordance with the relevant road rules and that the local authority had taken reasonable steps to ensure the truck was secure. Regarding the driver of the car, the court determined that the driver had failed to keep a proper lookout, particularly in light of the glare from the sun and the presence of the stationary truck. The court concluded that the driver should have recognised the potential danger posed by the truck and taken appropriate action to avoid the collision. The court also found that the issue of whether the truck driver was required to wear a seatbelt was not relevant to the determination of negligence in this case.

The court's decision was that the driver of the car was liable for the injuries sustained by Wynne and Pilbeam, as they had failed to keep a proper lookout. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs, Wynne and Pilbeam, against the driver of the car. The court found that the local authority and the truck driver were not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs. The court ordered the driver of the car to pay compensation to Wynne and Pilbeam for their injuries.

Orders