Transport operator pursues driver it blames for negligently damaging one of its trucks.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has struck down a ruling that held Landbridge Transport liable for a collision involving one of its vehicles and another truck in 2012.
Judge Geoff Bellew ordered the case be heard again after an appeal from the NSW-based transport firm.
Landbridge Transport blames truck driver Garry Buckley for entering the lane of its Kenworth in Sydney and hitting it with a trailer he was towing, damaging the truck’s handrail, steps, tyre, fuel tank panel, guards and paintwork.
Buckley claims Landbridge Transport driver Nathan Stinson moved into his lane and was responsible for the damage caused.
Landbridge Transport took the matter to court in 2013. The magistrate in the original hearing, Geoffrey Bradd, found that Buckley was travelling in his lane and that Stinson was responsible for the damage caused.
However, Bellew says Bradd failed to provide reasons for rejecting Stinson’s evidence.
“Indeed, there is not the slightest explanation of why Stinson’s evidence was apparently rejected…The Magistrate’s failure to set out the reasons for that apparent preference renders his reasons inadequate,” Bellew’s written ruling states.
“The Magistrate’s reasons provide no indication to the plaintiff why it was unsuccessful in the proceedings.”
In his affidavit, Stinson says he was in the middle lane next to Buckley, who was to the left of him. Stinson says Buckley’s trailer appeared to hit the kerb and bounce off, causing it to enter his lane and collide with the truck.
Stinson says he then tried to signal for Buckley to pull over.
“As I was driving slightly behind the Defendant’s truck and trailer, I looked at the Defendant’s driver side mirror and saw the Defendant look at me through his driver’s side mirror, the Defendant shrugged his shoulders, waved his arm and continued driving,” Stinson’s affidavit states.
Stinson took down the details of Buckley’s vehicle and Landbridge Transport then pursued the matter.
“I realised the defendant did not intend to stop so I memorised the registration plates of the defendant’s trailer,” Stinson says.
Landbridge Transport also appealed on the basis that Bradd left unresolved the accusation Stinson was travelling in the wrong lane, only saying the truck driver “drove so near” to Buckley.
The company says a finding is crucial to the determination of liability.
“…there was a significant, and fundamental, factual issue between the parties, namely whether Stinson’s vehicle encroached into Buckley’s lane. Buckley gave evidence that it did, Stinson denied that this was the case,” Bellew says.
“In these circumstances it is significant that the Magistrate’s reasons did not include any finding that Stinson’s vehicle in fact encroached into Buckley’s lane.”