Daniel James Waterworth v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Rosemary Wyn Waterworth v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Geoffrey Victor Waterworth v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Ruby Anne Hughes v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Aaron Ryan Hughes v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Tyara Jasmine Hughes v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Brendon Hughes v Jackalene Deborah Bambling [2013] NSWDC 17

Daniel James Waterworth v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Rosemary Wyn Waterworth v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Geoffrey Victor Waterworth v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Ruby Anne Hughes v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Aaron Ryan Hughes v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Tyara Jasmine Hughes v Jackalene Deborah Bambling; Brendon Hughes v Jackalene Deborah Bambling [2013] NSWDC 17

Busways owed and breached a duty of care to the school children by using a dangerous drop-off location on Lorne Road and by failing to audit the school bus route, which would have led a reasonable operator to terminate use of that location. That breach was a necessary condition of, and materially contributed to, the injuries, and it was appropriate for Busways' liability to extend to the harm. The Cross-Claimant's negligent driving had greater causative potency, so liability was apportioned 80% to the Cross-Claimant and 20% to Busways. Busways' liability did not arise from fault in the use or operation of the bus within the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, so Zurich's CTP policy did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Cross Claim for Contribution in Negligence and Third Cross Claim Concerning Compulsory Third Party Indemnity / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for the Cross-Claimant on the Cross-Claim; Third Cross-Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['concurrent Tortfeasors' 'duty of Care of Bus Company to School Children' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'apportionment of Liability' 'compulsory Third Party Policy Indemnity']
['torts' 'negligence' 'motor Accidents' 'insurance'] ['concurrent Tortfeasors' 'duty of Care of Bus Company to School Children' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'apportionment of Liability' 'compulsory Third Party Policy Indemnity']

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 Cross Claim for Contribution in Negligence and Third Cross Claim Concerning Compulsory Third Party Indemnity / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Busways owed a duty of care to the three children who had alighted from the bus.' 'If a duty of care was owed, the scope and content of that duty.' 'Whether Busways breached any duty of care.' 'Whether any breach was causative of relevant loss.' 'How loss should be apportioned between the Cross-Claimant and Busways.' 'Whether the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 applied so as to require Zurich to indemnify Busways under the Compulsory Third Party policy.']

Ratio Decidendi

Busways owed and breached a duty of care to the school children by using a dangerous drop-off location on Lorne Road and by failing to audit the school bus route, which would have led a reasonable operator to terminate use of that location. That breach was a necessary condition of, and materially contributed to, the injuries, and it was appropriate for Busways' liability to extend to the harm. The Cross-Claimant's negligent driving had greater causative potency, so liability was apportioned 80% to the Cross-Claimant and 20% to Busways. Busways' liability did not arise from fault in the use or operation of the bus within the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, so Zurich's CTP policy did...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the Cross-Claimant on the Cross-Claim; Third Cross-Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the Cross-Claimant on the Cross-Claim in each matter.' 'Liability to the Plaintiffs in each matter is to be apportioned 80% to the Defendant/Cross-Claimant and 20% to the CrossDefendant in each case.' 'The Cross-Defendant is to pay the costs of the Cross-Claimant.' 'The Third Cross-Claim is dismissed,...