Ranger v Turner [2007] NSWCA 162

Ranger v Turner [2007] NSWCA 162

Leave to appeal was refused because the claimant demonstrated no error in the primary judge's findings that he breached his duty of care by failing to keep a proper lookout and by inadequately braking, no error in the causation reasoning, no basis to disturb the 50% contributory negligence apportionment, and no error of principle in calculating future economic loss by reference to the opponent's reduced earning capacity rather than by a buffer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim for Damages Under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Arising From a Bicycle and Motorcycle Collision / Summons for Leave to Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From a District Court Judgment
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'causation' 'future Economic Loss' 'cushion or Buffer for Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'indemnity Costs After Offer of Compromise']
['negligence' 'motor Accidents' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'causation' 'future Economic Loss' 'cushion or Buffer for Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'indemnity Costs After Offer of Compromise']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Negligence Claim for Damages Under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Arising From a Bicycle and Motorcycle Collision / Summons for Leave to Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From a District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the claimant failed to keep a proper lookout.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the claimant breached his duty of care by applying only the rear brake and not the front brake.' 'Whether causation was established or the collision was inevitable.' "Whether the assessment of the opponent's contributory negligence at 50% was outside the proper range." 'Whether future economic loss should have been assessed by calculation or only by a modest buffer.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the claimant demonstrated no error in the primary judge's findings that he breached his duty of care by failing to keep a proper lookout and by inadequately braking, no error in the causation reasoning, no basis to disturb the 50% contributory negligence apportionment, and no error of principle in calculating future economic loss by reference to the opponent's reduced earning capacity rather than by a buffer.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons for leave to appeal is dismissed.' "The claimant is to pay the opponent's costs of the summons for leave to appeal on the ordinary basis up to and including 15 October 2006, and thereafter on an indemnity basis."]