BRADLEY v THE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1996] NSWCA 65

BRADLEY v THE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY P, MEAGHER JA, WADDELL AJA 29 March 1996, 29 March 1996 [1996] NSWCA 65

Motor vehicle accident — personal injuries.

Mahoney P This is an appeal against a judgment given by Rummery J in the District Court on 24 December 1992. The plaintiff had sued the defendant in negligence in reference to a motor vehicle accident which took place on 31 October 1984 at Warriewood near Sydney. The trial judge, having heard the evidence, gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court against his Honour's judgment.

The Court has had the benefit of the submissions of Mr Jobson for the appellant. For myself I would be content to say that I would dismiss the appeal essentially for the reasons given by the trial judge. However, in deference to the submissions made by Mr Jobson for the plaintiff I shall refer to one or two of the matters which he has highlighted. It is not necessary in the circumstances to catalogue the written submissions and to deal with every point in them.

The judge described the accident in the following terms. The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of a motor accident on 31 October 1984 at Warriewood. At about 7.15 am on that date he was riding his Honda motor cycle in a westerly direction in Mona Vale Road and when at or near its intersection with Walana Crescent there was a collision with a Toyota Pantech truck, which had also been travelling west in Mona Vale Road but at the time of the collision was in the act of making a right-hand turn into Walana Crescent.

The plaintiffs claim essentially has been that the defendant, in making the right-hand turn, did not keep a proper lookout. The defendant was a witness whom the judge accepted. His Honour said: "I accept Mr Gard's evidence in its entirety. I found him to be honest and impressive and a witness upon whose evidence I could rely with confidence. On the other hand, the plaintiff's evidence contained inconsistencies and could not be reconciled with the material in Exhibit 1".