Van Den Heuvel v Tucker No. SCCIV-00-1212

(2003) 85 SASR 512; [2003] SASC 110

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Motor vehicle driver
5. › Standard of care
6. › Speed in excess of statutory limit
7. › Whether exceeding speed limit on rural highway constitutes breach of duty of care
8. › Whether driver negligent in being unaware of speed
9. › Road Traffic Act (SA)
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Causation
4. › Material contribution
5. › Increased risk
6. › Mechanical failure at speed
7. › Whether excessive speed materially contributed to loss of control following unforeseeable axle failure
8. › Reversal of evidentiary onus
9. › Common sense approach to causation
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact
4. › Credibility findings
5. › Whether trial judge's findings on speed should be set aside
6. › Whether trial judge had regard to irrelevant considerations in assessing credibility
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Admissibility and use
4. › Whether trial judge improperly delegated judicial function to expert witness
5. › Whether expert evidence on ultimate issue usurped judicial function

Quick Take

Exceeding the statutory speed limit constitutes prima facie evidence of a breach of the duty of care, but the speed limit does not determine the standard of care in every situation — a modest excess on a good rural highway may not be negligent. However, driving without awareness of one's speed, combined with exceeding the speed limit, constitutes a breach of the duty to drive defensively. Where a driver's excessive speed increases the risk of inability to control a vehicle following a foreseeable mechanical mishap, and that risk eventuates, causation is established on the balance of probabilities, with the evidentiary onus shifting to the defendant to show the breach was not causative.