Zilio v Lane [2009] NSWDC 226

Zilio v Lane [2009] NSWDC 226

The defendant was not negligent because, when she commenced reversing, the plaintiff's motorcycle was not visible and could not have been heard, and by the time it was audible her vehicle had completed or was effectively completing the reverse manoeuvre and was stationary parallel to the kerb. Once she had begun reversing, there was nothing reasonable she could have done to avoid or minimise the risk. The accident was caused by the plaintiff's delayed and inappropriate reaction, rider inattention and excessive speed; if liability had otherwise been established, the plaintiff's contributory negligence would have been assessed at 100%.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Damages Claim Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Trial Judgment on Liability, Contributory Negligence and Alternative Quantum Findings
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accident Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'excessive Speed' 'drug Impairment' 'witness Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'damages Assessment']
['tort' 'motor Accidents' 'personal Injury' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accident Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'excessive Speed' 'drug Impairment' 'witness Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'damages Assessment']

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 Damages Claim Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Trial Judgment on Liability, Contributory Negligence and Alternative Quantum Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant was negligent in reversing her vehicle from her driveway into X Street before the plaintiff's motorcycle collision with a parked vehicle." "Whether the defendant could or should have seen or heard the plaintiff's motorcycle before commencing or completing the reversing manoeuvre." "Whether the plaintiff's excessive speed, inattention, state of mind or drug use caused or contributed to the accident." 'If liability were established, what percentage of contributory negligence should be assessed.' "If necessary, what damages would be assessed for the plaintiff's injuries and losses."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was not negligent because, when she commenced reversing, the plaintiff's motorcycle was not visible and could not have been heard, and by the time it was audible her vehicle had completed or was effectively completing the reverse manoeuvre and was stationary parallel to the kerb. Once she had begun reversing, there was nothing reasonable she could have done to avoid or minimise the risk. The accident was caused by the plaintiff's delayed and inappropriate reaction, rider inattention and excessive speed; if liability had otherwise been established, the plaintiff's contributory negligence would have been assessed at 100%.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendant.' "Plaintiff pay defendant's costs." 'Liberty to restore.' 'Exhibits retained for 28 days.']