Anthony Glohe v Nicholas Simington (No 3) [2016] NSWDC 155

Anthony Glohe v Nicholas Simington (No 3) [2016] NSWDC 155

The defendant drove his car towards the plaintiff in a negligent, if not reckless, manner, causing injury. The plaintiff's evidence was supported by an independent witness and credible; the defendant's account was less persuasive due to incomplete cross-examination. There was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Damages awarded reflect established loss and statutory requirements.

Parties
Plaintiff: Anthony Glohe; Defendant: Nicholas Simington
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Accident) / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Road Accidents, Liability of Drivers, Pedestrian Accidents, Contributory Negligence, Assessment of Credibility, Economic Loss, Attendant Care Services, Application of Malec V Hutton Principles
Torts Damages Negligence Road Accidents Liability of Drivers Pedestrian Accidents Contributory Negligence Assessment of Credibility +3 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Glohe

Plaintiff

Nicholas Simington

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (motor Vehicle Accident) / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in his driving causing injury to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the defendant deliberately harmed the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the accident was blameless under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant drove his car towards the plaintiff in a negligent, if not reckless, manner, causing injury. The plaintiff's evidence was supported by an independent witness and credible; the defendant's account was less persuasive due to incomplete cross-examination. There was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Damages awarded reflect established loss and statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff

Orders

  • The plaintiff is to have judgment against the defendant for damages in the sum of $37,104.