...
Author: Eden Christopher
Judgment Date: 12th February, 2016
Citation: Chu v Russell [2016] TASFC 1
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Tasmania – Full Bench[1]
Principles
- A motor vehicle is still considered a lethal weapon in Tasmania.
- Section 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA NSW) reads in similar terms to its equivalent in Tasmania, however, the principle of self-responsibility has not resonated in Tasmanian decisions.
Background
The plaintiff was riding his bicycle along the left-hand side of a country road in Tasmania with a friend. He was approaching a T-junction where he intended to turn right. At this point in the road, a turn out lane on the left side of the road begins to open so that by the time travellers reach the T-junction there are two separate lanes. The plaintiff checked the road behind him and saw the defendant driving towards him. The road approaching the T-junction is a long, straight and unobstructed road. The defendant was travelling at approximately 100km per hour when he first noticed the plaintiff and his friend about 100m ahead. He slowed to 90km per hour and then sped up again slightly as he began to pass the plaintiff.
Without signalling to the oncoming traffic, the plaintiff began crossing the road at an angle of 20 degrees and a speed of 15km per hour. The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's vehicle causing serious injury. The defendant alleged the plaintiff moved suddenly into the path of his vehicle.
Wood J, in the primary decision, cited Teubner v Humble [1963] HCA 11; (1961) 108 CLR 491 at 504:
Without signalling to the oncoming traffic, the plaintiff began crossing the road at an angle of 20 degrees and a speed of 15km per hour. The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's vehicle causing serious injury. The defendant alleged the plaintiff moved suddenly into the path of his vehicle.
Wood J, in the primary decision, cited Teubner v Humble [1963] HCA 11; (1961) 108 CLR 491 at 504:
...