Simmonds-Thatcher v Kamari [2021] VSCA 133
Facts
In Simmonds-Thatcher v Kamari [2021] VSCA 133, Ms. Simmonds-Thatcher (“the plaintiff”), was a passenger in a taxi that stopped to drop her off. After stopping, she walked around the rear of the stationary taxi and stepped onto the street, where she was struck by a vehicle driven by Mr. Kamari (“the defendant”). The driver of the vehicle claimed that he did not have an opportunity to see Ms. Simmonds-Thatcher before the collision.
Principles Used to Come to Decision
The court examined the duty of care owed by drivers to pedestrians, particularly those who may be hidden from view due to obstructions like stationary vehicles. It considered whether the driver was required to anticipate the presence of pedestrians in such circumstances and the standard of care expected to avoid collisions. The court also evaluated the concept of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, assessing whether her actions in stepping onto the street without ensuring it was safe contributed to the accident. Contributory negligence was identified by the plaintiff stepping onto the street without checking for oncoming traffic, and thus found to be partially at fault. The plaintiff’s actions increased the risk of harm, which reduced her claim against the defendant.
Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's decision, finding that the driver was not required to anticipate in all circumstances that a pedestrian might step into the street from behind a stationary vehicle. The court concluded that the driver had exercised reasonable care and was not negligent. Additionally, the court found that Ms. Simmonds-Thatcher was substantially contributorily negligent for stepping onto the street without ensuring it was safe, thereby reducing her entitlement to damages.
Lessons/New Principles
This case delineates between the responsibilities of drivers and pedestrians in situations involving potential obstructions, such as stationary vehicles. The court highlighted that while drivers have a duty of care to avoid collisions, they are not required to anticipate pedestrians suddenly stepping into the road from behind such obstructions unless there is a clear indication that this might occur. A driver is not expected to anticipate the sudden appearance of pedestrians from behind such obstructions.
Contributory negligence can significantly impact the outcome of personal injury claims, particularly when plaintiffs engage in actions that increase the risk of harm.
How we can assist…
At Bastion Legal, we help everyday Australians navigate complex legal issues with practical, straightforward advice. Our team is dedicated to resolving disputes, protecting rights, and achieving fair outcomes. Whatever challenge you’re facing, we provide clear guidance, strong representation, and practical solutions tailored to your situation.
If you’re facing a situation like the one discussed above, you do not need to face these issues alone. We’re here to protect your interests and work towards the outcome you deserve.
Contact us today for a free consultation and take the next step with confidence.