Damm v Damm [2008] NSWDC 64

Damm v Damm [2008] NSWDC 64

All three defendants owed and breached their respective duties of care to the plaintiff, resulting in liability for injuries sustained in the collision with escaped livestock; the greatest share of responsibility rests with the Rural Lands Protection Board due to its control of the stock reserve and failure to install a cattle grid, with apportionment of liability at 50% to the third defendant, 30% to the first defendant, and 20% to the second defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment With Proceedings Stood Over; Final Resolution by Consent Orders
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff by consent against all defendants; cross-claims determined per apportionment; costs ordered.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Accidents' 'duty of Care' 'apportionment of Liability' 'civil Liability Act 2002' 'rural Lands Protection Act 1989' 'assessment of Damages' 'contributory Negligence']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['motor Vehicle Accidents' 'duty of Care' 'apportionment of Liability' 'civil Liability Act 2002' 'rural Lands Protection Act 1989' 'assessment of Damages' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment With Proceedings Stood Over; Final Resolution by Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Liability of the driver for negligence in motor vehicle accident involving livestock' 'Liability of owner of escaped cow due to failure to prevent escape' 'Liability of Rural Lands Protection Board for not properly securing travelling stock reserve' 'Apportionment of liability among defendants' 'Assessment of damages considering pre-existing brain injury' 'Defences available to the Board under Civil Liability Act 2002']

Ratio Decidendi

All three defendants owed and breached their respective duties of care to the plaintiff, resulting in liability for injuries sustained in the collision with escaped livestock; the greatest share of responsibility rests with the Rural Lands Protection Board due to its control of the stock reserve and failure to install a cattle grid, with apportionment of liability at 50% to the third defendant, 30% to the first defendant, and 20% to the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff by consent against all defendants; cross-claims determined per apportionment; costs ordered.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for Plaintiff against First Defendant in the sum of $495,996.72' 'Judgment for Plaintiff against Second and Third Defendants in the sum of $597,496.72' "Defendants to pay Plaintiff's costs" 'Judgment on cross-claims between defendants, with payments and cost percentages reflecting apportioned liability'...