Marien v Gardiner; Marien v H J Heinz Company Australia Ltd [2013] NSWCA 396

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Marien v Gardiner; Marien v H J Heinz Company Australia Ltd [2013] NSWCA 396 Hearing dates: 8 November 2013 Decision date: 27 November 2013 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Meagher JA at [2]; Emmett JA at [60] Decision: In proceedings CA 2013/58768 (Marien v Gardiner): (1) Dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal. (2) Appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. In proceedings CA 2013/58771 (Marien v H J Heinz Company Australia Ltd): (1) Dismiss the appeal. (2) Allow the cross-appeal. (3) Set aside the judgment in favour of the respondent against the appellant in the sum of $58,650.62 together with interest of $9,026.43. (4) Judgment for the respondent against the appellant for $117,301.24 together with interest of $18,052.86, that judgment to take effect on 21 February 2013. (5) Appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - motor vehicle accident - car being driven with headlights on low beam in dark conditions collided with pedestrian walking on roadway with back towards oncoming traffic - whether primary judge erred in finding accident avoidable with headlights on low beam if driver keeping proper lookout - whether primary judge erred in finding driver negligent in not activating high beam - whether primary judge erred in assessment of contributory negligence of pedestrian Legislation Cited: Australian Road Rules (Cth), r 218 Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 5B, 5D Road Rules, r 218 Workers Compensation Act 1987, s 151Z Cases Cited: Anikin v Sierra [2004] HCA 64; 79 ALJR 452 Clarke v Freund [1999] NSWCA 197; 29 MVR 361 Cook v Cook [1986] HCA 73; 162 CLR 376 Derrick v Cheung [2001] HCA 48; 181 ALR 301 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2002] HCA 54; 211 CLR 540 Grove v Elphick (1985) 2 MVR 74 Hawthorne v Hillcoat [2008] NSWCA 340 J Blackwood & Son v Skilled Engineering [2008] NSWCA 142 Manley v Alexander [2005] HCA 79; 80 ALJR 413 McLean v Tedman [1984] HCA 60; 155 CLR 306 Morris v Luton Corporation [1946] 1 KB 114 New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20; 232 CLR 486 Nominal Defendant v Meakes [2012] NSWCA 66 Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26; 96 CLR 10 Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34; 59 ALJR 492 South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd v Cole [2002] NSWCA 205; 55 NSWLR 113 Turkmani v Visvalingam [2009] NSWCA 279; 53 MVR 176 Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; 223 CLR 422 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; 146 CLR 40 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CA 2013/58768