Armin Damirdjian v Nominal Defendant & Zaya [2021] NSWDC 703

Armin Damirdjian v Nominal Defendant & Zaya [2021] NSWDC 703

On the balance of probabilities, the white van involved in the accident was identified as a vehicle registered RCZ11A owned by the second defendant, so the claim against the Nominal Defendant failed. Although the second defendant was not found to be the driver, the vehicle was most probably being used by one of his employees. The driver negligently commenced a U-turn from a parked position across the plaintiff's path without warning or signalling, causing the plaintiff to brake harshly, lose control and suffer injury. The expert accident reconstruction evidence did not reliably displace the plaintiff's evidence that he was travelling at about 50 kph, and contributory negligence was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Vehicle Accident Negligence Claim for Personal Injury Damages / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $375,000; interest refused at this stage; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'nominal Defendant' 'unidentified Motor Vehicle' 'due Inquiry and Search' 'vehicle Ownership' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'expert Accident Reconstruction Evidence']

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 Accident Negligence Claim for Personal Injury Damages / Principal Judgment After Hearing

  1. 1 ['Whether, pursuant to s 34 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), the plaintiff had pursued due inquiry and search to ascertain the identity of the owner and driver of the vehicle, or whether the identity of the owner or driver had been established.' 'Whether expert accident reconstruction evidence assisted in determining the factual circumstances of the accident.' 'What factual circumstances led up to and immediately followed the accident.' 'Whether the driver of the white van owed a duty of care relative to the risk of harm.' 'Whether the plaintiff established negligence against either defendant.' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.' 'What damages should be assessed.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the white van involved in the accident was identified as a vehicle registered RCZ11A owned by the second defendant, so the claim against the Nominal Defendant failed. Although the second defendant was not found to be the driver, the vehicle was most probably being used by one of his employees. The driver negligently commenced a U-turn from a parked position across the plaintiff's path without warning or signalling, causing the plaintiff to brake harshly, lose control and suffer injury. The expert accident reconstruction evidence did not reliably displace the plaintiff's evidence that he was travelling at about 50 kph, and contributory negligence was not...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $375,000; interest refused at this stage; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff;' 'Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $375,000;' 'The application for interest on damages is refused at this stage;' 'I will hear the parties on the appropriate order for costs;' 'The exhibits may...