MARKABOUI v. GARDNER [2005] NSWSC 648

MARKABOUI v. GARDNER [2005] NSWSC 648

The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. The Court found that the defendant had a green signal for some time, was travelling within the speed limit on an arterial road, and that the plaintiff crossed against the pedestrian signal without stopping and emerged from in front of a stationary four-wheel drive vehicle which obscured her from the defendant's view. The stationary vehicles did not, alone or together, signal a foreseeable danger requiring the defendant to reduce speed, and the evidence did not establish that the defendant could or should have detected the plaintiff in time to avoid the collision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Accident Negligence Claim / Trial on Liability in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division
Outcome
Verdict in favour of the defendant.
Legal Topics
['reasonable Care by Driver' 'foreseeability of Pedestrian Danger' 'pedestrian Crossing Controlled by Traffic Signals' 'wheelchair User Crossing Against Red Pedestrian Signal' "obstruction of Driver's Vision by Stationary Vehicle" 'lookout and Speed']
['torts' 'negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'personal Injury'] ['reasonable Care by Driver' 'foreseeability of Pedestrian Danger' 'pedestrian Crossing Controlled by Traffic Signals' 'wheelchair User Crossing Against Red Pedestrian Signal' "obstruction of Driver's Vision by Stationary Vehicle" 'lookout and Speed']

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

Motor Vehicle Accident Negligence Claim / Trial on Liability in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant failed to keep a proper lookout or otherwise failed to exercise reasonable care when approaching the intersection on a green traffic signal.' 'Whether the defendant ought to have foreseen the risk that the plaintiff would emerge from in front of the stationary four-wheel drive vehicle against a red pedestrian signal.' 'Whether the stationary four-wheel drive vehicle in the right turn lane and another stationary vehicle in the left northbound lane signalled a risk requiring the defendant to reduce speed below 50 to 60 kilometres per hour.' 'Whether the defendant had a sufficient opportunity to see the plaintiff crossing the southbound lanes or emerging into the northbound lane in time to avoid the collision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. The Court found that the defendant had a green signal for some time, was travelling within the speed limit on an arterial road, and that the plaintiff crossed against the pedestrian signal without stopping and emerged from in front of a stationary four-wheel drive vehicle which obscured her from the defendant's view. The stationary vehicles did not, alone or together, signal a foreseeable danger requiring the defendant to reduce speed, and the evidence did not establish that the defendant could or should have detected the plaintiff in time to avoid the collision.

Court Disposition

Verdict in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict in favour of the defendant.']