Craig Riley v Chubb Security Services Ltd and Anor (No. 2) [2008] NSWDC 80

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Craig Riley v Chubb Security Services Ltd and Anor (No. 2) [2008] NSWDC 80

HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2007 - 21 February 2007, 3 March 2008 - 7 March 2008 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 7 March 2008

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Neilson DCJ at 1

DECISION: Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $266,064.82. I order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. I order the second defendant to pay its own costs

CATCHWORDS: Motor Vehicle Accident - Contributory Negligence - Plaintiff was a rear guard in an armoured vehicle owned by the defendant - Both Plaintiff and driver were employed by the defendant - Plaintiff injured after being struck on head by an internal door between the driver's compartment and rear compartment of the vehicle - Vehicle in motion at the time - Whether this was an injury as defined in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 s 7 - Held: the injury was one to which the MAC Act applied as the driver was negligent in driving whilst the door was unsecured and when he ought to have known that at least part of the plaintiff's body was in the path of the swinging door - Fuller v Reel Trans Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 336 - Emad Trolley Pty Ltd v Shigar (2003) 57 NSWLR 636 - Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568 - Toll Pty Ltd v Dakic [2006] NSWCA 58 - Inasmuch Community Inc v Bright [2006] NSWCA 99 - Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529 - Held: alleged defects in the vehicle were not the proximate cause of the injury - Whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by doing a required work task prematurely, prior to arrival at the site where work activity was to be carried out - Held: Plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as he was completely inexperienced on the route undertaken on the day of injury. He erroneously assumed that he had arrived at the appropriate place. To hold that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence would negate the liability of the more experienced driver of the vehicle who was familiar with the route and failed to give any warning of his driving forward uphill or failed to pause whilst the plaintiff completed his work task - Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152 - Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 224 - Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1986) 160 CLR 301 - Fleming, Law of Torts, 8th Ed.,1992, p. 516 - Plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt - Held: under MAC Act s 138(3), plaintiff's damages ought be reduced by 0% as there was no evidence of any causal relationship between the failure to wear the seatbelt and the plaintiff's injury - Nicholson v Nicholson (1994) 35 NSWLR 308