Sheldrick v Beveridge [2006] NSWDC 189

Sheldrick v Beveridge [2006] NSWDC 189

The second defendant breached its duty by failing to properly supervise the plaintiff during the excursion, and is vicariously liable for the negligence of its teachers, while the first defendant was not negligent as her actions were those of a reasonably prudent driver in all the circumstances. The plaintiff was guilty of 40% contributory negligence for failing to comply with traffic rules.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
For the plaintiff against the second defendant; For the first defendant against the plaintiff; Cross-claims determined as per findings; Costs as per orders.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'vicarious Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'supervision of Children' 'costs Orders']
['negligence' 'personal Injury'] ['duty of Care' 'vicarious Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'supervision of Children' 'costs Orders']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant was negligent as the driver of the motor vehicle' 'Whether the second defendant (Department of Education and Training) breached its duty by failing to supervise the plaintiff' 'Extent of contributory negligence of the plaintiff' 'Appropriate apportionment of damages' 'Entitlement to Bullock or Sanderson order as to costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant breached its duty by failing to properly supervise the plaintiff during the excursion, and is vicariously liable for the negligence of its teachers, while the first defendant was not negligent as her actions were those of a reasonably prudent driver in all the circumstances. The plaintiff was guilty of 40% contributory negligence for failing to comply with traffic rules.

Court Disposition

For the plaintiff against the second defendant; For the first defendant against the plaintiff; Cross-claims determined as per findings; Costs as per orders.

Orders

  • ['Second defendant to pay plaintiff $360,000.' 'First defendant to have verdict against plaintiff.' 'First defendant to have judgment in both cross-claims against and by second defendant.' "Second defendant to pay plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed on ordinary basis." "Plaintiff to pay first defendant's costs...