BRATTON v SHARP [2004] NSWSC 505

BRATTON v SHARP [2004] NSWSC 505

The First Defendant was negligent because the Plaintiff and bus were visible for long enough, with sufficient street lighting and vehicle headlights, for a reasonably careful driver familiar with Gannons Road to see and avoid the Plaintiff. The Second Defendant was negligent because it allowed the practice of employees going onto the roadway to assist buses reversing and failed to take simple precautions such as providing and requiring reflective vests. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent because he failed to keep a proper lookout for northbound traffic while standing or moving on an obvious and dangerous roadway. Responsibility was assessed at one third to the Plaintiff, with the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings Arising From a Pedestrian Being Struck by a Motor Vehicle While Assisting a Bus to Reverse From a Depot / Trial Judgment; Stood Over for Short Minutes of Order
Outcome
Reasons published; matter stood over for short minutes of order reflecting the conclusions and the parties' agreement on quantum.
Legal Topics
['driver Negligence' "employer's Duty of Care" 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment Between Defendants' 'pedestrian Visibility and Illumination' 'workplace Safety Practices']
['torts' 'negligence' 'employment Law' 'motor Vehicle Accidents'] ['driver Negligence' "employer's Duty of Care" 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment Between Defendants' 'pedestrian Visibility and Illumination' 'workplace Safety Practices']

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 Proceedings Arising From a Pedestrian Being Struck by a Motor Vehicle While Assisting a Bus to Reverse From a Depot / Trial Judgment; Stood Over for Short Minutes of Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Defendant was negligent in failing to see the Plaintiff and avoid colliding with him on Gannons Road.' 'Whether the Second Defendant employer was negligent in allowing or failing to control the practice of employees going onto the roadway to assist buses reversing from the depot.' 'Whether the Plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety and was contributorily negligent.' 'How responsibility should be apportioned between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and as between the Defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant was negligent because the Plaintiff and bus were visible for long enough, with sufficient street lighting and vehicle headlights, for a reasonably careful driver familiar with Gannons Road to see and avoid the Plaintiff. The Second Defendant was negligent because it allowed the practice of employees going onto the roadway to assist buses reversing and failed to take simple precautions such as providing and requiring reflective vests. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent because he failed to keep a proper lookout for northbound traffic while standing or moving on an obvious and dangerous roadway. Responsibility was assessed at one third to the Plaintiff, with the...

Court Disposition

Reasons published; matter stood over for short minutes of order reflecting the conclusions and the parties' agreement on quantum.

Orders

  • ['Stood over for short minutes of order.']