WILLIAMS v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1995] NSWCA 516

WILLIAMS v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1995] NSWCA 516

It was not erroneous for the trial judge to find contributory negligence on the part of the appellant for knowingly entrusting her vehicle to an intoxicated, inexperienced driver and failing to take precautions; however, the apportionment of 80% was excessive and should be reduced to 40% as a just and equitable share of responsibility for the damage.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Tanya Williams; Respondent/defendant: Government Insurance Office of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Apportionment, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Compulsory Third Party Insurance, Assessment of Damages
Negligence Insurance Damages Contributory Negligence Apportionment Motor Vehicle Accidents Compulsory Third Party Insurance Assessment of 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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanya Williams

Appellant/plaintiff

Government Insurance Office of New South Wales

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was contributorily negligent by handing her vehicle to an intoxicated, inexperienced learner driver
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in apportioning 80% contributory negligence to the appellant
  3. 3 Whether damages for past and future economic loss were properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

It was not erroneous for the trial judge to find contributory negligence on the part of the appellant for knowingly entrusting her vehicle to an intoxicated, inexperienced driver and failing to take precautions; however, the apportionment of 80% was excessive and should be reduced to 40% as a just and equitable share of responsibility for the damage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Set aside the judgment of Herron DCJ
  • Order judgment for the appellant for $82,584.60 effective from 10 April 1992, credit for any sum already paid