Hare v Harmer [2008] NSWDC 25

Hare v Harmer [2008] NSWDC 25

Although the bald tyres were a substantial contributing factor to the accident, the plaintiff knew of their condition, took control of the vehicle, and failed to drive to the wet road conditions. The defendant was not liable for failing to prevent the plaintiff from driving, and responsibility for the accident rested with the plaintiff. The claim also failed because the plaintiff took an obvious risk.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Claim / Trial Judgment; Pending Appeal
Outcome
Verdict for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['causation' 'bald Tyres' 'wet Road' 'obvious Risk' 'alcohol' 'contributory Negligence' 'damages']
['civil Liability' 'negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'personal Injury'] ['causation' 'bald Tyres' 'wet Road' 'obvious Risk' 'alcohol' 'contributory Negligence' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Claim / Trial Judgment; Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What caused the crash: speed or the combination of wet road conditions and bald tyres.' 'If bald tyres caused the crash, whether the defendant was negligent in permitting the plaintiff to drive an unroadworthy car.' 'Whether the plaintiff took an obvious risk by driving knowing the car was not roadworthy.' 'Whether responsibility for risk taking should be dealt with by contributory negligence.' 'The quantum of damages, if any, to be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the bald tyres were a substantial contributing factor to the accident, the plaintiff knew of their condition, took control of the vehicle, and failed to drive to the wet road conditions. The defendant was not liable for failing to prevent the plaintiff from driving, and responsibility for the accident rested with the plaintiff. The claim also failed because the plaintiff took an obvious risk.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the defendant.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. This order is suspended until 4pm on 2 April 2008 to allow either party to list the matter for further argument." 'Exhibits will be retained for 28 days.']