Court of Appeal

Share this

Tinworth v Haydon & Insurance Australia Limited [2014] QCA 183 (14/0046) Holmes and Morrison JJA and Dalton J 05/08/2014

Full-text: QCA14-183.pdf

Catchwords

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – FAILURE TO LOOK-OUT – GENERALLY – where the applicant was the unsuccessful plaintiff in an action for damages for personal injuries suffered when he was hit by a car driven by Mr Haydon – where the respondent is the driver’s insurer – where three vehicles, including the applicant’s and Mr Haydon’s, aquaplaned on a strip of water across a highway and slid into an adjacent ditch, Mr Haydon's vehicle striking the plaintiff – where the applicant argued that the trial judge should have found the driver negligent in not driving at a lower speed once a flood warning sign became visible – where there was no evidence that had the applicant driven at the lower speed he would have seen the water in time to reduce his speed still further – where there was no evidence as to the speed at which the water on the highway could safely be traversed – where the trial judge found that the applicant had failed to establish liability – whether leave to appeal should be granted

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – where the applicant was the unsuccessful plaintiff in an action for damages for personal injuries suffered when he was hit by a car driven by Mr Haydon – where the respondent is the driver’s insurer – where the trial judge found the applicant had failed on the threshold question of liability – where the trial judge set out observations about contributory negligence in the event his primary conclusion on liability was not accepted – whether the trial judge's observations about contributory negligence were inconsistent with his findings on liability – whether the trial judge’s reasons were adequate