Roads And Traffic Authority v Jacques [2000] NSWCA 85

Roads And Traffic Authority v Jacques [2000] NSWCA 85

Although the 20 percent contributory negligence finding was very favourable to the respondent, the case did not justify appellate interference with the apportionment. However, the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for the awards for past and future economic loss, making it impossible to tell whether those...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal in Negligence Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Appeal From the District Court to the New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; the damages judgment was set aside except for the District Court costs order, and the matter was remitted for reassessment of past and future economic loss.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Accident' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'assessment of Damages' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['torts' 'negligence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['motor Vehicle Accident' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Responsibility' 'assessment of Damages' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'adequacy of Reasons']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal in Negligence Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Appeal From the District Court to the New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether appellate intervention was warranted in the trial judge's apportionment of contributory negligence at 20 percent against the respondent." 'Whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons for the assessment of past and future economic loss, requiring a new trial limited to those components of damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the 20 percent contributory negligence finding was very favourable to the respondent, the case did not justify appellate interference with the apportionment. However, the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for the awards for past and future economic loss, making it impossible to tell whether those amounts were correct; a retrial limited to those components was therefore necessary.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; the damages judgment was set aside except for the District Court costs order, and the matter was remitted for reassessment of past and future economic loss.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' "The judgment in favour of the respondent for $237,532, but not the order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs, set aside." 'The action remitted to the District Court for the respondent\'s past and future economic loss to be reassessed and his damages determined on the basis of...