Williams v Nominal Defendant and Rosekelly; Rosekelly v Nominal Defendant and Williams [2007] NSWDC 81

Williams v Nominal Defendant and Rosekelly; Rosekelly v Nominal Defendant and Williams [2007] NSWDC 81

The court was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that an unidentified vehicle caused or contributed to the accident; both Ms Williams and Ms Rosekelly were found negligent—Ms Williams as driver for failing to control the vehicle at excessive speed in response to the warning, and Ms Rosekelly for failing to perform her obligations as supervising driver. Responsibility for the damages was apportioned 60% to Ms Williams and 40% to Ms Rosekelly for contributory negligence.

Parties
Plaintiff: Niki Williams; Defendant: Nominal Defendant; Defendant: Jodie Rosekelly
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Liability and contributory negligence apportioned; verdicts for Nominal Defendant and for plaintiffs in both proceedings with apportionment; cross claims dismissed; final orders and costs stood over.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Liability of Supervising Driver, Negligence, Presence of Unidentified Motor Vehicle
Torts Motor Vehicle Accidents Contributory Negligence Liability of Supervising Driver Negligence Presence of Unidentified Motor Vehicle

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Niki Williams

Plaintiff

Nominal Defendant

Defendant

Jodie Rosekelly

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unidentified motor vehicle caused or contributed to the accident
  2. 2 Whether there was due inquiry and search regarding the unidentified vehicle
  3. 3 Whether there was negligence by Ms Rosekelly as supervising driver

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that an unidentified vehicle caused or contributed to the accident; both Ms Williams and Ms Rosekelly were found negligent—Ms Williams as driver for failing to control the vehicle at excessive speed in response to the warning, and Ms Rosekelly for failing to perform her obligations as supervising driver. Responsibility for the damages was apportioned 60% to Ms Williams and 40% to Ms Rosekelly for contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Liability and contributory negligence apportioned; verdicts for Nominal Defendant and for plaintiffs in both proceedings with apportionment; cross claims dismissed; final orders and costs stood over.

Orders

  • Verdict for the Nominal Defendant in proceedings 217/2005 and 248/2005.
  • Cross claims in proceedings 248/2005 dismissed.