JOSEPH v PLATCHER and BURNS v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT [1991] NSWCA 162

JOSEPH v PLATCHER and BURNS v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT [1991] NSWCA 162

Both Ms Joseph and Mr Platcher were negligent in failing to look for approaching vehicles before entering the intersection, causing the collision. Apportionment of 50% responsibility each is justified. Interest on past general damages should be calculated at 2% per annum as per Gogic. Damages for Mr Burns were inadequate and should be increased.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Joseph; Respondent/plaintiff: Platcher; Appellant/plaintiff: Burns; Respondent/defendant: The Nominal Defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeals (consolidated From Separate Actions) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Cross Appeals
Outcome
Appeals and cross-appeals variously allowed and dismissed; Masters' findings largely affirmed with adjustments to damages and interest.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Traffic Light Regulations, Damages Assessment, Interest on Damages
Negligence Personal Injuries Motor Vehicle Accidents Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Traffic Light Regulations Damages Assessment Interest on Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph

Appellant/defendant

Platcher

Respondent/plaintiff

Burns

Appellant/plaintiff

The Nominal Defendant

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeals (consolidated From Separate Actions) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Cross Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms Joseph and Mr Platcher were negligent in the motor vehicle collision
  2. 2 Whether apportionment of 50% liability each was correct
  3. 3 Whether interest on past general damages was calculated correctly

Ratio Decidendi

Both Ms Joseph and Mr Platcher were negligent in failing to look for approaching vehicles before entering the intersection, causing the collision. Apportionment of 50% responsibility each is justified. Interest on past general damages should be calculated at 2% per annum as per Gogic. Damages for Mr Burns were inadequate and should be increased.

Court Disposition

Appeals and cross-appeals variously allowed and dismissed; Masters' findings largely affirmed with adjustments to damages and interest.

Orders

  • In Platcher's case: (1) Appeal allowed in part. (2) Judgment set aside and entered for Platcher in $492,118 from 4 October 1989. (3) Appellant to pay nine tenths of costs of the appeal, respondent to pay one tenth; respondent to have certificate under Suitor's Fund Act. (4) Cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
  • In Burns' case: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Judgment set aside and entered for Burns in $28,417 from 4 October 1989. (3) Respondent to pay appeal costs. (4) Cross-appeals dismissed with costs.