Fuller v McLeod [2016] NSWDC 377

Fuller v McLeod [2016] NSWDC 377

The defendant was found negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to avoid striking the plaintiff during the incident. The defence of self-defence under s52 Civil Liability Act 2002 failed as the defendant’s response was held not to be reasonable in the circumstances, and s54 was inapplicable as the defendant’s conduct also caused the injury. There was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff as his proximity to the defendant’s vehicle was not unreasonable and did not materially contribute to the risk of injury.

Parties
Plaintiff: Craig Anthony Fuller; Defendant: Peter William McLeod
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $126,186.19.
Legal Topics
Motor Accidents Compensation, Negligence, Self Defence, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Personal Injury Motor Accidents Compensation Negligence Self Defence Contributory Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Anthony Fuller

Plaintiff

Peter William McLeod

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in striking the plaintiff with his vehicle or trailer after a roadside incident
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's actions were protected under self-defence pursuant to Civil Liability Act 2002 s52
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was found negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to avoid striking the plaintiff during the incident. The defence of self-defence under s52 Civil Liability Act 2002 failed as the defendant’s response was held not to be reasonable in the circumstances, and s54 was inapplicable as the defendant’s conduct also caused the injury. There was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff as his proximity to the defendant’s vehicle was not unreasonable and did not materially contribute to the risk of injury.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $126,186.19.

Orders

  • The defendant to pay the plaintiff $126,186.19 in damages.
  • The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis until 22 April 2016 and on an indemnity basis from 23 April 2016.