Cook v. Hawes [2002] NSWCA 79

Cook v. Hawes [2002] NSWCA 79

The responsibility for the accident was substantially greater on the part of the respondent, who crossed against a red signal without looking, than the appellant, whose momentary lapse was less significant; accordingly, the apportionment should be 25 percent for the appellant and 75 percent for the respondent. The quantification of damages by the primary judge was adjusted in accordance with agreed corrections and a new judgment substituted.

Parties
Appellant: Brian James Cook; Respondent: Alan Leslie Hawes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Responsibility, Pedestrian Accident
Torts Negligence Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Responsibility Pedestrian Accident

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

Parties

Brian James Cook

Appellant

Alan Leslie Hawes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was negligent in causing the injury to the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment of responsibility at 50/50 for contributory negligence was reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the quantification of damages by the primary judge was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The responsibility for the accident was substantially greater on the part of the respondent, who crossed against a red signal without looking, than the appellant, whose momentary lapse was less significant; accordingly, the apportionment should be 25 percent for the appellant and 75 percent for the respondent. The quantification of damages by the primary judge was adjusted in accordance with agreed corrections and a new judgment substituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the respondent for $93,205.18 to be substituted for the judgment below for $229,532.41
  • Respondent to pay one-half of the appellant's costs of the appeal, and to have a suitor's fund certificate if otherwise entitled, subject to further written submissions on costs if made within 14 days