Hansen v Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 145

Hansen v Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 145

Mr Hansen was negligent because entering the highway from the service station was a dangerous manoeuvre at night in heavy rain with limited visibility and insufficient time for approaching traffic to avoid him. Mr Hawkins did not hear the CB radio warning, but was also negligent because he travelled too fast for the reduced visibility and road conditions. Responsibility was apportioned two-thirds to Mr Hansen and one-third to Mr Hawkins, with judgment to be calculated by setting Slattery Transport's two-thirds recovery against Lyschrome's one-third recovery.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Negligence Proceedings Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident, With Claim and Cross Claim Each Met by Contributory Negligence Allegations / Appeal From District Court Judgment of Balla DCJ Dated 4 March 2011
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; District Court orders 1-3 set aside; judgment to be entered for Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd against Lyschrome Pty Ltd and Peter Hansen on the apportioned calculation ordered by the Court.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Accident' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'safe Speed' 'foreseeable Risk' 'vicarious Liability']
['torts' 'negligence' 'damages'] ['motor Vehicle Accident' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'safe Speed' 'foreseeable Risk' 'vicarious Liability']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Negligence Proceedings Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident, With Claim and Cross Claim Each Met by Contributory Negligence Allegations / Appeal From District Court Judgment of Balla DCJ Dated 4 March 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Hansen was negligent in entering the northbound lane of the Pacific Highway from the service station at night in rain on a sweeping bend.' "Whether Mr Hawkins heard and disregarded Mr Hansen's CB radio warning." 'Whether Mr Hawkins was contributorily negligent by travelling too fast for the conditions and reduced visibility.' 'If both drivers were negligent, what apportionment of responsibility was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hansen was negligent because entering the highway from the service station was a dangerous manoeuvre at night in heavy rain with limited visibility and insufficient time for approaching traffic to avoid him. Mr Hawkins did not hear the CB radio warning, but was also negligent because he travelled too fast for the reduced visibility and road conditions. Responsibility was apportioned two-thirds to Mr Hansen and one-third to Mr Hawkins, with judgment to be calculated by setting Slattery Transport's two-thirds recovery against Lyschrome's one-third recovery.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; District Court orders 1-3 set aside; judgment to be entered for Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd against Lyschrome Pty Ltd and Peter Hansen on the apportioned calculation ordered by the Court.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal and set aside orders 1-3 made by the District Court.' 'Give judgment for Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd against Lyschrome Pty Ltd and Peter Hansen in an amount to be agreed between the parties or, absent agreement, to be determined by this Court, to be calculated as two-thirds of the loss...