Category Archives: Motor Accidents

Causation, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Personal Injury

Leach v The Nominal Defendant (QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd) [2014] NSWCA 257

ON 6 AUGUST 2014, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Leach v The Nominal Defendant (QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd) [2014] NSWCA 257.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=173201

The appellant brought proceedings in the NSW District Court seeking damages for gunshot injuries received when his vehicle collided with an unidentified vehicle and shots were fired from that vehicle before it was driven away.

Kearns DCJ of the District Court entered a verdict for the respondent, finding that the appellant’s injuries were not caused by the fault of a driver of a motor vehicle in the use or operation of a motor vehicle within the meaning of s3A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW).

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the District Court decision, concluding that although the injuries were the fault of the driver of the unidentified vehicle, and although the injuries were received in the use or operation of a motor vehicle, the proximate cause of the appellants injuries was the gunfire as opposed to the driving of the unidentified vehicle.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence

Bourhill v Young [1942] UKHL 5 | 5 August 1942

ON 5 AUGUST 1942, the House of Lords delivered Bourhill v Young [1942] UKHL 5 (5 August 1942).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1942/5.html

A car and motorcycle collided near a tram causing fatal injuries to the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was travelling at excessive speed and was at fault. A passenger on the tram heard the sound of the collision but saw nothing. She was startled by the noise of the collision, suffering nervous shock, though she was not in immediate physical injury herself. She observed blood on the roadway after the motorcyclists body had been removed. She later suffered a miscarriage. She claimed damages including losses to her business arising from the nervous shock.

The House of Lords held that the motorcyclist was not guilty of negligence as he did not owe a duty of care to the tram passenger as he could not have reasonably foreseen the likelihood that anyone placed as her (in a position of apparent safety) could have been affected in such a manner.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence

Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40

ON 28 AUGUST 2008, the High Court of Australia delivered Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40 (28 August 2008).

The High Court held that an unlicensed 16 year old driver owed the same duty of care as any other driver to take reasonable care to avoid injury to others, overturning its decision in Cook v Cook [1986] HCA 73; (1986) 162 CLR 376 (2 December 1986) in which it had held that the standard of care was that which would be expected of an unqualified and inexperience driver.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence, Personal Injury

North Sydney Council v Binks [2007] NSWCA 245

North Sydney Council v Binks [2007] NSWCA 245 (18 September 2007).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2007/245.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Limitations, Motor Accidents

Smith v Grant [2006] NSWCA 244

ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2006, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Smith v Grant [2006] NSWCA 244 (5 September 2006).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2006/244.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence, Personal Injury, Work injuries

Allianz Aust v GSF Aust [2005] HCA 26

ON 19 MAY 2005, the High Court of Australia delivered Allianz Aust v GSF Aust [2005] HCA 26; 221 CLR 568; 215 ALR 385; 79 ALJR 1079 (19 May 2005).

The High Court held that a worker who injured his back whilst directed by his employer to use crowbars to unload transport containers from a truck following a mechanical breakdown did not receive an “injury” within the meaning of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 as the mechanism was not defective. The injury was received through an unsafe system of work rather than the “use or operation of a motor vehicle”.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence, Personal Injury

Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35

ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2002, the High Court of Australia delivered Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; 211 CLR 317; 191 ALR 449; 76 ALJR 1348 (5 September 2002).

In a claim for damages for psychiatric injury caused by negligence, direct perception of the event or its aftermath is not a necessary aspect in all cases.

The question is whether it was reasonable to require the defendant to contemplate the risk of psychiatric injury to the plaintiff, and to take reasonable care to guard against the risk.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Contract, Employer's liability, Employment Law, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence, Work injuries

Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44

ON 9 AUGUST 2001, the High Court of Australia delivered Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44; 207 CLR 21; 75 ALJR 1356; 106 IR 80; 181 ALR 263 (9 August 2001).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/44.html

The plaintiff was a pedestrian who was injured on a footpath by a bike courier. The defendant was the courier company who engaged the cy list. The company denied liability for the pedestrian’s injuries on the basis that the cyclist was an independent contractor. The trial judge awarded damages to the pedestrian, finding that the cyclist was an employee. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the company, finding that the cyclist was an independent contractor.

The High Court allowed an appeal by the cyclist,  holding that the cyclist was not an independent contractor because:

  • no discretion to accept or reject work.
  • stringent roster system.
  • clear rules on taking annual leave.
  • little or no scope for freelancing.
  • no special skills.
  • cyclists were identified with the company with uniforms and a dress code.
  • pay and conditions were consistent with an employment relationship.
  • no scope for bargaining of rates.
  • the provision of the bikes as necessary tools and equipment was not inconsistent with an employment relationship
  • the exercise of control by the company over the courier’s activities.

The relevant considerations for determining whether or not a person is an independent contractor include:

  • Who owns the business?
  • Who controls the operation/work?
  • Who owns the office space?
  • Who owns the tools?
  • Who does the contractor provide duties to?
  • Does the independent contractor bear a risk of profit or loss?
  • Is there a creation of goodwill?
  • How is the independent contractor paid?

 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Damages, Evidence, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Personal Injury

Sullivan v Gordon [1999] NSWCA 338

ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1999, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Sullivan v Gordon [1999] NSWCA 338 (22 September 1999).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/1999/338.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Motor Accidents, Negligence

Gala v Preston [1991] HCA 18

ON 28 MAY 1991, the High Court of Australia delivered Gala v Preston [1991] HCA 18; (1991) 172 CLR 243 (28 May 1991).

A passenger injured whilst travelling in a car that was used for an unlawful purpose was not entitled to damages for injuries he received when the driver lost control of the vehicle and collided with a tree. The court held that a duty not was owed because there was no relationship of proximity between the parties and in the circumstances the they could not have had “any reasonable basis for expecting that a driver of the vehicle would drive it according to ordinary standards of competence and care”.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088