Hardwick v Jankowski [2019] NSWDC 90

Hardwick v Jankowski [2019] NSWDC 90

On the balance of probabilities, the collision occurred as the plaintiff described: the defendant attempted a right-hand turn into Ortona Parade, entered the northbound lane and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The Court preferred the plaintiff's evidence and Ms Gaffney's reconstruction evidence over the defendant's account and Mr Griffiths' evidence, particularly because of the vehicles' rest positions, the airbag deployment, the location and nature of tyre and skid marks, and deficiencies or inconsistencies in the defendant's account. The defendant breached his duty of care by failing to remain stationary and wait for the plaintiff's vehicle to pass. The accident caused a soft...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Accident Personal Injury Damages Claim / Principal Judgment After Trial; Judgment for the Plaintiff With Submissions Invited as to Final Orders
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; quantum assessed at $95,229.10, with parties invited to make submissions as to final orders, interest and costs.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'breach of Duty of Care by Road User' 'causation' 'pre Existing Condition and Acceleration of Pathology' 'future Economic Loss' 'future Out of Pocket Expenses' 'future Domestic Assistance' 'expert Collision Reconstruction Evidence']

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 Motor Accident Personal Injury Damages Claim / Principal Judgment After Trial; Judgment for the Plaintiff With Submissions Invited as to Final Orders

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant breached his duty of care and was negligent in making a right-hand turn into Ortona Parade from Tivoli Esplanade.' "Whether the plaintiff's compensable injuries, including future economic loss, future care and future out-of-pocket expenses, were caused by the collision or by pre-existing abnormal back pathology." "Whether damages for future heads of loss should be discounted for the possibility that future harm would be caused by pre-existing pathology rather than the defendant's negligence."]

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the collision occurred as the plaintiff described: the defendant attempted a right-hand turn into Ortona Parade, entered the northbound lane and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The Court preferred the plaintiff's evidence and Ms Gaffney's reconstruction evidence over the defendant's account and Mr Griffiths' evidence, particularly because of the vehicles' rest positions, the airbag deployment, the location and nature of tyre and skid marks, and deficiencies or inconsistencies in the defendant's account. The defendant breached his duty of care by failing to remain stationary and wait for the plaintiff's vehicle to pass. The accident caused a soft...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; quantum assessed at $95,229.10, with parties invited to make submissions as to final orders, interest and costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff.' 'The parties are to make submissions as to the orders necessary to give effect to the reasons, including orders for interest and costs, with any supporting evidence to be sent to the Associate within 7 days of the date of the reasons.' 'Absent any application to the contrary, final...