What happened

In 2017, Yebdoo changed lanes to pass a waiting vehicle and collided with Holmewood's motorcycle as he moved into the adjacent lane. She sued him for psychiatric injury arising from the collision and its immediate aftermath. An independent witness and evidence about movement and braking were central.

The issues

The question was whether proper lookout and braking by the motorcyclist would have avoided a collision sufficiently forceful to cause the psychiatric injury. The court had to decide whether the estimates of time, distance and braking supported that counterfactual on the balance of probabilities.

The court's decision

The trial judge found negligent late braking but was not satisfied that proper braking would have prevented or sufficiently reduced the collision. Judgment was entered for Holmewood with costs. In 2021, Gleeson and Leeming JJA formed the majority dismissing Yebdoo's appeal; Macfarlan JA dissented.

Understanding the figures

The historical AUD $65,145 trial assessment was contingent, before any contributory reduction, and the claim was dismissed. The dissenting appeal judgment's proposed $26,058 award did not become an order of the court.

What this case shows

The case illustrates the separate requirements of breach and causation, and the limits of estimates involving very short times and distances. It also requires care when reading proposed orders in a dissent: they were not the orders of the appeal court.

Why another case may differ

The June 2017 accident fell under the historical Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 framework with the relevant Civil Liability Act 2002 causation provisions. The result is not a universal requirement for reconstruction evidence in every collision claim. Neither contingent trial damages nor the dissent's proposed amount was an actual recovery.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →