COLE v LAWRENCE [2001] NSWSC 92

COLE v LAWRENCE [2001] NSWSC 92

The First Defendant was negligent because, despite darkness, the Plaintiff's dark clothing and possible glare from club lights, she should have seen the Plaintiff substantially earlier than 2 to 3 metres away and either drove too fast for the level of visibility or failed to keep a proper lookout; a slight change of direction would probably have avoided the collision. The Second Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care in serving alcohol and breached it by supplying alcohol when the Plaintiff was visibly intoxicated or approaching intoxication, which contributed causally to the Plaintiff's gross intoxication and injury. The Plaintiff substantially failed to take...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Proceeding Arising From a Motor Vehicle Collision / Trial Judgment; Orders Deferred
Outcome
Orders deferred; reasons found both defendants negligent, the Plaintiff contributorily negligent by 40%, and the two defendants equally responsible as between themselves for the remaining responsibility.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care in Serving Alcohol' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment Between Defendants' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'negligence' 'motor Accidents' 'registered Clubs and Alcohol Service' 'damages'] ['duty of Care in Serving Alcohol' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment Between Defendants' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Personal Injury Negligence Proceeding Arising From a Motor Vehicle Collision / Trial Judgment; Orders Deferred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Defendant was negligent in driving at about 70 kilometres per hour with low beam headlights and failing to see and avoid the Plaintiff on Fraser Drive.' 'Whether the Second Defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the Plaintiff in and about serving alcohol to her while intoxicated or approaching intoxication.' "Whether any negligence by either defendant caused the Plaintiff's injuries." "What reduction should be made for the Plaintiff's contributory negligence." 'How responsibility should be apportioned between the defendants.' 'What damages should be assessed against the defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant was negligent because, despite darkness, the Plaintiff's dark clothing and possible glare from club lights, she should have seen the Plaintiff substantially earlier than 2 to 3 metres away and either drove too fast for the level of visibility or failed to keep a proper lookout; a slight change of direction would probably have avoided the collision. The Second Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care in serving alcohol and breached it by supplying alcohol when the Plaintiff was visibly intoxicated or approaching intoxication, which contributed causally to the Plaintiff's gross intoxication and injury. The Plaintiff substantially failed to take...

Court Disposition

Orders deferred; reasons found both defendants negligent, the Plaintiff contributorily negligent by 40%, and the two defendants equally responsible as between themselves for the remaining responsibility.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff to prepare calculations in accordance with the reasons.' "Plaintiff to seek the Defendants' agreement to the calculations." 'Matter to be relisted for the making of formal orders.']