Managrave v Vrazalica [1999] NSWCA 242

Managrave v Vrazalica [1999] NSWCA 242

The finding that the appellant was negligent was open because, after seeing the respondent on the roadway at a busy intersection where pedestrians were known to cross outside the crossing, he failed to slow or brake before diverting his attention; a reasonable driver would have foreseen a significant risk of injury and taken evasive precautions. The 20% contributory negligence finding was within the permissible discretionary range. The cross-appeal succeeded in part because the trial judge misread medical evidence relevant to past economic loss, failed to make any allowance for past and future superannuation, and erred in assessing future domestic care, requiring recalculation of damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Accident Negligence Appeal and Cross Appeal on Damages / Appeal From District Court Judgment of Delaney DCJ
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal upheld with costs; District Court verdict set aside and substituted verdict entered for the respondent in the sum of $342,794.00.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'standard of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'past and Future Economic Loss' 'past and Future Domestic Care' 'loss of Superannuation']
['torts' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'damages'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'standard of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'past and Future Economic Loss' 'past and Future Domestic Care' 'loss of Superannuation']

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 Appeal and Cross Appeal on Damages / Appeal From District Court Judgment of Delaney DCJ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant negligent.' "Whether the trial judge erred in allowing only 20% for the respondent's contributory negligence." 'Whether the trial judge erred in assessing past and future economic loss.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in failing to allow damages for loss of superannuation.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in assessing past and future domestic care.']

Ratio Decidendi

The finding that the appellant was negligent was open because, after seeing the respondent on the roadway at a busy intersection where pedestrians were known to cross outside the crossing, he failed to slow or brake before diverting his attention; a reasonable driver would have foreseen a significant risk of injury and taken evasive precautions. The 20% contributory negligence finding was within the permissible discretionary range. The cross-appeal succeeded in part because the trial judge misread medical evidence relevant to past economic loss, failed to make any allowance for past and future superannuation, and erred in assessing future domestic care, requiring recalculation of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal upheld with costs; District Court verdict set aside and substituted verdict entered for the respondent in the sum of $342,794.00.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.' 'The cross-appeal is upheld with costs.' "By consent order the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and the cross-appellant's costs of the cross-appeal on a solicitor client basis." 'Verdict and judgment for the respondent of $255,216.00 entered by Delaney DCJ be...