Liu v Jiang [2013] NSWDC 184

Liu v Jiang [2013] NSWDC 184

Both the plaintiff and the defendant failed to keep a proper lookout at an unusually controlled intersection. The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant's asserted stationary vehicles were absent, and the defendant should still have seen the plaintiff's vehicle pass in front of her before impact. The parties were equally responsible for the collision, so the plaintiff's assessed damages of $441,691 were reduced by 50% for contributory negligence, producing judgment for $220,845.50.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Claim for Damages Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Quantum
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $220,845.50; application for indemnity costs refused; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Collision at Stop Sign Controlled Intersection' 'credibility and Language Interpretation Issues' 'contributory Negligence and Apportionment' 'assessment of Personal Injury Damages' 'domestic Assistance and Economic Loss']
['personal Injury' 'motor Accidents' 'negligence' 'damages'] ['motor Vehicle Collision at Stop Sign Controlled Intersection' 'credibility and Language Interpretation Issues' 'contributory Negligence and Apportionment' 'assessment of Personal Injury Damages' 'domestic Assistance and Economic Loss']

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 Personal Injury Claim for Damages Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Liability and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant was negligent in the collision at the intersection of Dickson Avenue and Clarendon Street, Artarmon.' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout and by entering the intersection when her passage was masked by stationary vehicles.' 'How responsibility for the collision should be apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendant.' "What damages should be assessed for the plaintiff's injuries, economic loss, out-of-pocket expenses, rent loss and future domestic assistance."]

Ratio Decidendi

Both the plaintiff and the defendant failed to keep a proper lookout at an unusually controlled intersection. The plaintiff did not prove that the defendant's asserted stationary vehicles were absent, and the defendant should still have seen the plaintiff's vehicle pass in front of her before impact. The parties were equally responsible for the collision, so the plaintiff's assessed damages of $441,691 were reduced by 50% for contributory negligence, producing judgment for $220,845.50.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $220,845.50; application for indemnity costs refused; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['I give verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $220,845.50.' 'Application for indemnity costs is refused.' "I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis."]