Koropachinsky v Wang [2018] NSWDC 318

Koropachinsky v Wang [2018] NSWDC 318

The first defendant negligently caused the collision by attempting a highly risky and unlawful U-turn across double lines on Victoria Road when he had limited sight distance and failed to observe or give way to the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff reacted immediately, was within the speed limit, and could not reasonably have appreciated that the first defendant was about to cross the double lines to perform a U-turn, so contributory negligence was not established. The second defendant was vicariously liable, but that did not relieve the first defendant of liability; judgment was entered against both defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Vehicle Property Damage Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants for $178,993.49, with defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['damage to Aston Martin Vanquish' 'negligent Driving' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'u Turn Across Double Lines' 'employer and Principal Vicarious Liability' 'joint Tortfeasors']
['torts' 'negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'vicarious Liability'] ['damage to Aston Martin Vanquish' 'negligent Driving' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'u Turn Across Double Lines' 'employer and Principal Vicarious Liability' 'joint Tortfeasors']

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 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first defendant's driving caused the collision and the plaintiff's loss." 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout or driving at an unsafe and excessive speed.' 'Whether the first defendant was not liable because the second defendant, as employer or principal, was vicariously liable or required to indemnify him.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant negligently caused the collision by attempting a highly risky and unlawful U-turn across double lines on Victoria Road when he had limited sight distance and failed to observe or give way to the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff reacted immediately, was within the speed limit, and could not reasonably have appreciated that the first defendant was about to cross the double lines to perform a U-turn, so contributory negligence was not established. The second defendant was vicariously liable, but that did not relieve the first defendant of liability; judgment was entered against both defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants for $178,993.49, with defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff for $178,993.49.' "Defendants pay plaintiff's costs." 'Liberty to restore in relation to interest and costs.' 'Exhibits retained for 28 days.']