Scott v Williamson; Picken v Williamson [2013] NSWCA 124

Scott v Williamson; Picken v Williamson [2013] NSWCA 124

The first respondent breached his duty to keep a proper lookout; the appellants would have been visible sufficiently in advance to be avoided had proper attention been paid. The second respondent did not create a dangerous situation and owed no duty to warn of an obvious risk. The trial judge’s assessments of contributory negligence were appropriate. Damages should be remitted to the District Court for assessment due to inadequate findings and credibility issues at trial.

Parties
Appellant: Rebecca Scott; Appellant: James Picken; First Respondent: Michael John Williamson; Second Respondent: Stephen Pastega
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; verdict and costs orders in favour of the first respondent set aside; judgment for appellants against the first respondent; matters remitted to District Court for assessment of damages; appeals against the second respondent dismissed.
Legal Topics
Road Accident Liability, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Duty to Warn, Obvious Risk
Torts Negligence Road Accident Liability Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Duty to Warn Obvious Risk

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebecca Scott

Appellant

James Picken

Appellant

Michael John Williamson

First Respondent

Stephen Pastega

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent breached his duty to keep a proper lookout
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent created a dangerous situation
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent had a duty to warn the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent breached his duty to keep a proper lookout; the appellants would have been visible sufficiently in advance to be avoided had proper attention been paid. The second respondent did not create a dangerous situation and owed no duty to warn of an obvious risk. The trial judge’s assessments of contributory negligence were appropriate. Damages should be remitted to the District Court for assessment due to inadequate findings and credibility issues at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; verdict and costs orders in favour of the first respondent set aside; judgment for appellants against the first respondent; matters remitted to District Court for assessment of damages; appeals against the second respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed as against first respondent/first defendant Michael John Williamson (both appeals)
  • Appeal dismissed as against second respondent Stephen Pastega (both appeals)