Yedelian v McKune

Case [2005] NSWDC 8


CITATION: Yedelian v McKune [2005] NSWDC 8
HEARING DATE(S): 29 August to 1 September, 6 September 2005
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

12 October 2005
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Rein SC DCJ
DECISION: See [47].
CATCHWORDS: Plaintiff a child pedestrian injured by motor vehicle - Contribution sought by defendant motorist from child’s father - Whether father owed a duty of care to child - Level of apportionment
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 76
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, s 5
Motor Traffic Regulations 1935, reg 84
CASES CITED: AMP General Insurance v Brett (1998) 27 MVR 492
Betts v Whittingslowe (1945) 71 CLR 637
Bullock v London General Omnibus Co [1907] 1 KB 264
Commonwealth v Clark [1994] 2 VR 333
Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258
Dare v Dobson [1960] SR(NSW) 474
Derrick v Cheung (2001) 181 ALR 301; [2001] HCA 48
Dickenson’s Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania (1974) 130 CLR 177
Doubleday v Kelly [2005] NSWCA 151
Federation Insurance Ltd v Wasson (1987) 163 CLR 303
Hahn v Conley (1971) 126 CLR 276
Ireland v Brown (DCt NSW, Garling DCJ, 28 July 2000)
Lolomanaia v Rush (1996) 24 MVR 128
McCallion v Dodd [1966] NZLR 710
McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199
Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry [1923] 2 KB 832
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited (1985) 59 ALR 529
Posthuma v Campbell (1984) 37 SASR 321
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Smith [2005] NSWCA 130
Ramsay v Larsen (1964) 111 CLR 16
Richards v State of Victoria [1969] VR 136
Robertson v Swincer (1989) 52 SASR 356
Scrase v Jarvis (1998) 27 MVR 85
Mye v Peters (1967) 68 SR(NSW) 298
Towart v Adler (1989) 52 SASR 373
Watt v Bretag (1982) 56 ALJR 760
Worland v Tobin [2004] NSWSC 113
PARTIES: Sevag Yedelian (by tutor Mary Yedelian) (Plaintiff/Cross Defendant)
Scott McKune (First Defendant/Cross Claimant)
FILE NUMBER(S): 2038/98
COUNSEL: Mr Stitt QC; J Morris (Plaintiff/Cross Defendant)
Mr King SC; Mr D Ronzani (First Defendant/Cross Claimant)
SOLICITORS: Marsdens (Plaintiff/Cross Defendant)
Henry Davis York (First Defendant/Cross Claimant)

JUDGMENT

1 On 3 April 1995 the Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle driven by the First Defendant whilst he was crossing Kent Road, Ryde. The Second Defendant is the Plaintiff’s father, who had stopped his car on the other side of the road and dropped off the Plaintiff and his sister.

2 In the accident, the Plaintiff suffered a fractured leg. He also claimed that following the accident he suffered behavioural difficulties and that these behavioural difficulties were either a result of frontal lobe injury or post traumatic stress.

3 The Defendants disputed any liability to the Plaintiff and contested the causal connection between any condition from which the Plaintiff suffers or may suffer and the accident.

4 The Plaintiff and First Defendant resolved the dispute as between themselves subject to approval of the Court pursuant to s 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

5 The First Defendant had joined the Second Defendant…

Continue reading Yedelian v McKune

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Yedelian v McKune [2005] NSWDC 8
Case
[2005] NSWDC 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, a child pedestrian, suffered injuries from being struck by a motor vehicle driven by the defendant. The defendant sought contribution from the child's father, arguing that the father owed a duty of care to the child and that the father's negligence contributed to the child's injuries. The court was tasked with determining whether the father owed a duty of care to the child and, if so, the appropriate level of apportionment of damages.

The primary legal issue was whether the father had a duty of care towards the child that could be breached, thereby contributing to the child's injuries. The court examined the principles of negligence, focusing on the relationship between the father and the child, and whether the father's actions or omissions could be considered negligent in the context of the accident. The court also considered whether the father's potential negligence could be a concurrent cause of the child's injuries.

The court found that the father did not owe a duty of care to the child in the circumstances of the case. The relationship between the father and the child did not create a special relationship that would impose a duty of care. The court emphasised that the father's role as a caregiver did not translate into a legal duty that could be breached in the context of the accident. Consequently, the father's negligence could not be considered a concurrent cause of the child's injuries, and the defendant's claim for contribution was dismissed. The court also noted that the father's actions were not such that they could be considered a cause of the accident, further supporting the conclusion that no duty of care was owed.

The court ordered that the defendant was not entitled to any contribution from the father for the child's injuries. The defendant was required to pay the full amount of damages awarded to the child.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [47].

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.