Bonnor & Bonnor v Wth Pty Ltd [1996] QSC 110
.. al '2.CZ6D3 . t,c,, q6/ I to
...Jl'fJ; State Reporting Bureau
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold
without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.)
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CULLINANE J
No 22 of 1995
GREGORY GUSTAVUS BONNOR
and
MIRELLA BONNOR
and
WTH PTY LTD
CAIRNS
.. DATE 12/06/96
.. JUDGMENT
1
REVISED COPIES ISSUED
State Reporting Bureau
Date I 7/o I I C::, 1.;-
First Plaintiff
Second Plaintiff
Defendant
r'
-- 1 of 7 --
HIS HONOUR: This action arises out of a collision which
occurred around about midnight on 8 June 1992, or a short time
into the 9th of June 1992 on the Bruce Highway about some 17
or so kilometres to the north of Innisfail.
The first plaintiff was a passenger in a Mitsubishi Magna
sedan being driven by his wife, the second plaintiff, in a
southerly direction along the highway. They were travelling
from Cairns to their home at Kurrimine Beach. The collision
which occurred involved their vehicle and a Holden Commodore
sedan which was being driven by an American, one Mr Patrick
Dennis Brophy, in a northerly direction along the highway.
I have photographs of the highway in the area. I have
photographs of both vehicles which show damage substantially
to the front of each, with the major damage on the front
passenger side of each vehicle. , I also have the benefit of a
plan drawn by Sergeant Whitnall who investigated the incident.
The photographs of the area show skid marks and debris
indicating the general point of the collision. The skid
marks, it seems clear, were left by ·the Holden Commodore sedan
and their length appears in Exhibit 1. It would seem that the
plaintiffs' vehicle did not leave any marks on the road.
It was common ground and, indeed, was admitted by the
defendant that the collision occurred on the plaintiffs'
correct side of the road that is on the south bound lane of
the highway. The skid marks would indicate that it occurred
well over to the plaintiffs' side of the highway.
2
-- 2 of 7 --
Mr Brophy, who as I have indicated, is an American, was not
called to give evidence before me.
There was evidence of roadworks being carried out to the Bruce
Highway some distance to the south of the point of collision.
Some of the photographs which were tendered show some aspects
of this work. The evidence was that the works ceased some
distance in excess of 400 metres to the south of the point of
collision. The photographs show a series of drums with orange
and black signs attached to them. These have been described
in evidence as chevron signs and, at the end of the row of
drums, there is a barrier across the south bound side of the
roadway, again, with a chevron type marking on it. To the
right, as one travels north, are a series of chevron signs.
There was a set of traffic lights to regulate the passage of
vehicles along the detour at either end of it and Exhibit 2 E
shows the back of the northern lights in accordance with the
position of a driver driving to the north.
I should say, if it is not already clear, that the detour
involved travel over a significant distance along the south
bound side of the roadway with the north bound side of the
roadway closed. This was the position according to Sergea~t
'
Whitnall on the evening of the collision.
As one travels south towards the point of collision, one comes
down a slight incline and then crosses a bridge over Canal
Creek before commencing to describe a gradual curve to the
left. The collision occurred shortly after the commencement
3
-- 3 of 7 --
of this curve. Someone travelling to the north would be in
the process of almost completing a curve to the right at the
point of collision.
The first plaintiff had been leaning back in the passenger
vehicle and was not watching the road. He heard his wife say
something, or call something out. He looked up and saw lights
in front of his vehicle and a collision occurred almost
immediately.
The second plaintiff says that she was driving at about 90
kilometres per hour. She was aware of the approach of a
vehicle from its lights. The evidence establishes that one
can detect the approach of vehicles in this area before
actually seeing the vehicles at night. She says that as she
came into the curve, it was obvious to her that the vehicle
was on its incorrect side of the roadway and a very short
distance from her. She says that she believes she put her
foot on the brake and that a collision occurred at about the
same time.
rt seems to me clear that the driver of the Holden Commodore
was guilty of negligence.
r:
rt was suggested that the Court ought to infer that the end;of
the roadworks was inadequately indicated and that the proper
inference to draw is that the driver of the Holden proceeded
on the incorrect side of the roadway in the belief that the
detour was still continuing.
4
-- 4 of 7 --
120696
There are I should add, Third Party proceedings still to be
determined between the defendant and the Department of
Transport, which raises this very issue.
It is not necessary for me to make any findings in these
proceedings as to whether the end of the detour was adequately 10
indicated or not. However, what is in my view clear, is that
there were indications of the end of the detour that a person
driving along the highway in a northerly direction ought to
have seen, namely the end of the row of drums and the point at
which the north bound side of the highway was closed off and
that following that he was entering into an area of the
highway which had no obstructions upon it. A person
exercising reasonable care in those circumstances ought to
have returned to the correct side of the highway.
I am satisfied the driver of the Commodore was guilty of
negligence for driving on the incorrect side of the roadway at
the time that he did.
Some allegations of contributory negligence were made against
the second plaintiff. It must be borne in mind that the
second plaintiff was faced with a difficult situation, namely
the presence a relatively short distance in front of her, of r,
vehicle on its incorrect side of the roadway. I am not
satisfied that there was any want of any failure on her part
to keep a proper lookout. As I have indicated, she was
entering a curve in the roadway and I accept that ·it would
have only been possible once the curve had been entered to
5 JUDGMENT
20
30
40
50
60
-- 5 of 7 --
120696
ascertain that the approaching vehicle was on its incorrect
side of the roadway.
There was some evidence by the first plaintiff which suggested
that a period of some five seconds passed between the time he
heard his wife call out and the time of the collision. This 10
of course would allow a significant distance to be traversed
and steps to be taken which might have avoided the collision,
such as by steering on to the incorrect side of the roadway or
off the roadway to the left. Although I think care has to be
taken not to overstate the options open.
However I prefer, in this regard, the evidence of the second
plaintiff as to what occurred and I am satisfied that she was
faced with the position of a vehicle on its incorrect side of
the roadway, a relatively short distance in front of her, and
that her response to that situation cannot be criticised as in
any way involving a departure from the standard of care which
is relevant, in this case, for her own safety.
I am not prepared to make a finding in the light of the facts
as I accept them as being of contributory negligence against
here.
r:
I give judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendant'·
in .the sum of $100,000 with costs to be taxed.
I give judgment for the second plaintiff against the defendant
in the sum of $160,000 with costs to be taxed.
6 JUDGMENT
20
30
40
50
60
-- 6 of 7 --
120696
Are there any particular matters of costs that need to be
attended to?
MR MELLICK: No thank you Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Are there any reserved costs?
MR MELLICK: No. Not as between the plaintiffs and the
defendant.
MR JENSEN: No, no Your Honour.
THE COURT ADJOURNED AT 3.08 P.M.
r:
7 JUDGMENT
10
20
30
40
50
60
-- 7 of 7 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QSC/1996/110