BIG Transport Pty Limited v Hi-Tech Heavy Haulage Pty Limited [2020] NSWDC 924

BIG Transport Pty Limited v Hi-Tech Heavy Haulage Pty Limited [2020] NSWDC 924

The collision was caused by Mr Petrevski's negligent driving: he was driving in the middle of the road or mainly on the incorrect side of the carriageway when he could safely have kept left, he failed to keep a proper lookout, and he failed to take earlier adequate evasive action. Had he driven near the left side of the seal and merely eased off the accelerator, the collision would not have occurred. Mr Housler was not negligent because when he commenced his left turn onto Ulm Avenue he had no reason to perceive danger, could not then see the plaintiff's rig, and made a reasonable choice to accelerate and move left when confronted with the approaching vehicle.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Vehicle Negligence/property Damage Proceedings Arising From a Collision Between Two Prime Movers Towing Trailers, Including a Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Liability Determined and Quantum Agreed
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff on the statement of claim; verdict and judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $104,674; costs ordered against the plaintiff/cross-defendant, with indemnity costs after 19 February 2019.
Legal Topics
['collision Between Heavy Vehicles' 'property Damage' 'duty of Care of Drivers' 'proper Lookout' 'keeping to the Left Side of the Carriageway' 'evasive Action' 'costs Following Offers of Compromise']
['motor Vehicle Law' 'torts' 'negligence'] ['collision Between Heavy Vehicles' 'property Damage' 'duty of Care of Drivers' 'proper Lookout' 'keeping to the Left Side of the Carriageway' 'evasive Action' 'costs Following Offers of Compromise']

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 Negligence/property Damage Proceedings Arising From a Collision Between Two Prime Movers Towing Trailers, Including a Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Liability Determined and Quantum Agreed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's driver, Mr Petrevski, was negligent in the manner in which he drove the Mercedes Benz prime mover and trailer before the collision." "Whether the defendant's driver, Mr Housler, was negligent in turning from the Downer compound service road onto Ulm Avenue and attempting to move left before the collision." 'Whether any contributory negligence by Mr Housler arose.' 'What verdict, judgment, damages and costs orders should be made given agreed quantum and offers of compromise.']

Ratio Decidendi

The collision was caused by Mr Petrevski's negligent driving: he was driving in the middle of the road or mainly on the incorrect side of the carriageway when he could safely have kept left, he failed to keep a proper lookout, and he failed to take earlier adequate evasive action. Had he driven near the left side of the seal and merely eased off the accelerator, the collision would not have occurred. Mr Housler was not negligent because when he commenced his left turn onto Ulm Avenue he had no reason to perceive danger, could not then see the plaintiff's rig, and made a reasonable choice to accelerate and move left when confronted with the approaching vehicle.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff on the statement of claim; verdict and judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $104,674; costs ordered against the plaintiff/cross-defendant, with indemnity costs after 19 February 2019.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs." 'Verdict and judgment for the cross-claimant for $104,674 against the cross-defendant.' "The cross-defendant is to pay the cross-claimant's costs." "Pursuant to UPCR 42.15, the plaintiff is to pay the...