Carr v Nicholls [2007] NSWDC 160

Carr v Nicholls [2007] NSWDC 160

The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence because she did in fact fasten the seatbelt, which was not secured to the vehicle due to the defendant's failure to bolt it in place. The evidence of the plaintiff and witness was preferred over the defendant's account. Damages were assessed based on the evidence of loss and statutory entitlements. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the full sum claimed, with costs ordered accordingly.

Parties
Plaintiff: Carissa May Carr; Defendant: Aaron William Nicholls
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Contributory Negligence, Damages
Tort Law Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Contributory Negligence Damages

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carissa May Carr

Plaintiff

Aaron William Nicholls

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in the motor accident causing injury to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence for not wearing a seatbelt
  3. 3 Assessment of damages for injuries and losses sustained

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence because she did in fact fasten the seatbelt, which was not secured to the vehicle due to the defendant's failure to bolt it in place. The evidence of the plaintiff and witness was preferred over the defendant's account. Damages were assessed based on the evidence of loss and statutory entitlements. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the full sum claimed, with costs ordered accordingly.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $759,733.26
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs, on the ordinary basis up to 17 November 2006, and thereafter on an indemnity basis