Bates v Gillham [2016] NSWCA 129

Bates v Gillham [2016] NSWCA 129

The respondent did not prove that the appellant failed to exercise reasonable care. On the properly available facts, the right turn was lawful, traffic was light, visibility was good, following traffic had ample opportunity to see the appellant's vehicle, she had indicated her intention to turn right in ample time and applied her brake, and it was not shown to be unreasonable that she was unaware of the U-turn bay. The trial judge's contrary findings relied on unsupported factual findings and an unpleaded, unproved alternative precaution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Court judgment and orders set aside; judgment entered for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['scope of Duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'rear End Collision' 'right Turn Across Painted Lines' 'burden of Proof' 'alternative Precautions']
['negligence' 'civil Liability' 'motor Vehicle Accidents'] ['scope of Duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'contributory Negligence' 'rear End Collision' 'right Turn Across Painted Lines' 'burden of Proof' 'alternative Precautions']

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

Civil Negligence Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant breached her duty of care by stopping in the centre lane of the Great Western Highway to turn right into a fruit barn.' "Whether a reasonable person in the appellant's position would have adopted the precaution of not attempting the right turn or using a U-turn bay." 'Whether the trial judge made findings of fact unsupported by the evidence, including as to brake lights, indicator use, stopping twice, and the availability of the U-turn bay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not prove that the appellant failed to exercise reasonable care. On the properly available facts, the right turn was lawful, traffic was light, visibility was good, following traffic had ample opportunity to see the appellant's vehicle, she had indicated her intention to turn right in ample time and applied her brake, and it was not shown to be unreasonable that she was unaware of the U-turn bay. The trial judge's contrary findings relied on unsupported factual findings and an unpleaded, unproved alternative precaution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Court judgment and orders set aside; judgment entered for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and orders made in the District Court.' 'In place thereof, give judgment for the defendant and order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the trial.' "Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal." "Grant the respondent a certificate under the...