Cordin v The Nominal Defendant [2016] NSWDC 12

Cordin v The Nominal Defendant [2016] NSWDC 12

On the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff was struck from behind by an unidentified motor vehicle while proceeding slowly and negotiating potholes, causing him to be shunted forward off his bicycle and sustaining his injuries. The expert evidence provided by Dr Carnavas, being more consistent with the found facts and the physical evidence, is to be preferred over the defendant's expert. The defendant has not established contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The liability of the unidentified driver is established through breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and the harm suffered resulted from that breach.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the agreed amount without discount for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'expert Evidence' 'procedure for Calling Expert Evidence']
['torts' 'practice & Procedure'] ['negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'expert Evidence' 'procedure for Calling Expert Evidence']

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 / Principal Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff fell from his bicycle due to a collision from behind with an unidentified motor vehicle or simply fell from his bicycle.' 'Whether the plaintiff has established negligence on the part of the driver of an unidentified motor vehicle.' 'Whether the defendant has established contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.' 'Which of the conflicting expert accident reconstruction opinions is to be preferred.' 'Whether the evidence supports the involvement of a motor vehicle.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff was struck from behind by an unidentified motor vehicle while proceeding slowly and negotiating potholes, causing him to be shunted forward off his bicycle and sustaining his injuries. The expert evidence provided by Dr Carnavas, being more consistent with the found facts and the physical evidence, is to be preferred over the defendant's expert. The defendant has not established contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The liability of the unidentified driver is established through breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and the harm suffered resulted from that breach.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the agreed amount without discount for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability without discount for alleged contributory negligence;' 'Judgment for the plaintiff in the agreed sum of $350,000;' "The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis until 10 July 2015, and on an indemnity basis from 11 July...