Radojka Backo v Kris Akhurst [2015] NSWDC 85

Radojka Backo v Kris Akhurst [2015] NSWDC 85

The defendant breached her duty of care by failing to keep a proper lookout and entering the bus lane unsafely, which was a foreseeable risk in traffic conditions where pedestrians could deviate from the crossing. However, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by crossing against a red pedestrian light and outside the marked crossing. Apportioning responsibility, the court found plaintiff 55% contributorily negligent. Damages were calculated accordingly.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff (with deduction for contributory negligence)
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'contributory Negligence' 'damages' 'pedestrian Liability' 'driver Liability']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'motor Vehicle Accidents'] ['negligence' 'contributory Negligence' 'damages' 'pedestrian Liability' 'driver Liability']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant was negligent in operating her motor vehicle and caused personal injury to the plaintiff' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in crossing the roadway against the pedestrian signal and outside the marked crossing' 'Quantum of damages (economic and non-economic loss) arising from the accident']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached her duty of care by failing to keep a proper lookout and entering the bus lane unsafely, which was a foreseeable risk in traffic conditions where pedestrians could deviate from the crossing. However, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by crossing against a red pedestrian light and outside the marked crossing. Apportioning responsibility, the court found plaintiff 55% contributorily negligent. Damages were calculated accordingly.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff (with deduction for contributory negligence)

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $46,386.00 (after 55% contributory negligence)' "Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs" 'Liberty for parties to apply within 14 days to relist regarding special costs' 'Exhibits to be retained for 28 days']