Proudlove v Burridge

(2017) 79 MVR 257; [2017] WASCA 6

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Motor vehicle accident
3. › Collision with horse on country road at night
4. › Passenger injured
5. › Whether driver negligent in failing to see person waving warning on roadway
6. › Whether collision avoidable
7. › Causation
8. › Whether breach of duty caused or materially contributed to injuries
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact
4. › Inferences drawn from primary facts
5. › Whether appellate court should interfere with trial judge's findings
6. › Whether findings demonstrated to be wrong by incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony or glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Admissibility
4. › Application of algorithm from academic literature to discount visibility distance
5. › Whether evidence of 'Hyzer and Hyzer method' admissible as expert opinion
6. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), ss 5C, 5D

Quick Take

In motor vehicle negligence cases involving collisions with hazards on unlit roads, the plaintiff bears the onus of proving that a reasonable driver could have stopped or avoided the collision within the available distance. The Austroads Guide stopping sight distance formula may be used to calculate stopping distances even where no expert directly applied it, and the appropriate braking coefficient depends on whether a reasonable driver would have braked for an emergency or merely slowed down. The distinction between detection and identification of a hazard is critical to calculating available reaction distance.