CALDWELL v DEKA [1993] NSWCA 47

CALDWELL v DEKA [1993] NSWCA 47

The respondent driver, while keeping his attention on the red traffic lights as he approached the intersection, failed to maintain sufficient vigilance to the possibility of pedestrians emerging between stationary vehicles—a real though not constant risk in the circumstances. Negligence was established on his part. However, the pedestrian's conduct in crossing away from the controlled crossing and failing to keep adequate lookout was highly contributory, warranting 80% apportionment of blame to her and 20% to the respondent.

Parties
Applicant: Rita Caldwell; Respondent: Phillip Deka
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 1993
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial on damages with reduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Pedestrian Accidents, Standard of Care, Motor Vehicle Collisions, Appeal Procedure
Negligence Motor Vehicle Law Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Pedestrian Accidents Standard of Care Motor Vehicle Collisions Appeal Procedure

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rita Caldwell

Applicant

Phillip Deka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motorist breached the duty of care owed to a pedestrian crossing between stationary vehicles near traffic lights.
  2. 2 To what extent the pedestrian was contributorily negligent and the proper apportionment of responsibility.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent driver, while keeping his attention on the red traffic lights as he approached the intersection, failed to maintain sufficient vigilance to the possibility of pedestrians emerging between stationary vehicles—a real though not constant risk in the circumstances. Negligence was established on his part. However, the pedestrian's conduct in crossing away from the controlled crossing and failing to keep adequate lookout was highly contributory, warranting 80% apportionment of blame to her and 20% to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial on damages with reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment for the defendant in the District Court set aside