Written by Scarlett Eadie
Motor vehicle collisions that occur at intersections controlled by traffic lights are a common occurrence. These types of collisions can, at times, be difficult to resolve as often it is a case of, he said, she said, with both drivers asserting they had a green light and that the other ran the red light.
The recent New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of Saltalamacchia v Zamagias [2024] NSWCA 184 attests to the difficulty of determining who is at fault for such collisions. This article will provide an analysis of that case.
The Facts
The circumstances were as follows:
- A collision occurred at the T-intersection of Access Road and Hoxton Park Road between Billy Zamagias, who was driving a Hyundai iLoad van, and Antoinette Saltalamacchia, who was driving a Volkswagen sedan.
- Mr Zamagias was travelling in an easterly direction on the transit way in a lane in the centre of Hoxton Park Road which is reserved for buses and associated vehicles.
- He was entitled to travel in that lane.
- Mr Zamagias gave evidence that a white “B” signal was displayed giving him right of way to continue straight through the intersection.
- Ms Saltalamacchia also travelled in an easterly direction and was positioned in the lane to the left of the transit lane Mr Zamagias’ vehicle travelled in, which was a right-hand turn lane.
- Her brother, Gabriel Halwagy, was in the front passenger seat.
- Ms Saltalamacchia gave evidence she had been stationary in the right-hand turn lane and that she only proceeded forward to perform her right hand turn when the right-hand arrow turned green.
- As both Mr Zamagias and Ms Saltalmacchia entered the intersection, a collision ensued.
Due to the operation of the intersection, it was not possible for both Mr Zamagias to have a white “B” signal and Ms Saltalamacchia to have a green right-hand turn arrow at the same time. It therefore followed that either Mr Zamagias or Ms Saltalamacchia were mistaken as to the colour of the light.
District Court Proceeding
As a result of the collision, Mr Zamagias suffered a fracture to his C2 vertebrae. He subsequently commenced proceedings in the District Court for damages associated with the injuries he suffered.
The primary judge was tasked with having to decide whose evidence to prefer.
Mr Zamagias advanced a narrative that Ms Saltalmacchia was distracted at the time of the collision as she was in discussion with her brother and that she only entered the intersection after being nudged by her brother and being told by him that the light had changed. It followed that Ms Saltalmacchia mistakenly believed the right turn arrow had turned green when it was only the light that had changed to green.
Ms Saltalmacchia advanced a different narrative being that Mr Zamagias was likely tired at the time as he had been working for around eight hours and was nearing the end of his shift. This likely lead to him being inattentive and not observing the colour of the lights change. In contrast, Ms Saltalmacchia was attentive and was also able to give evidence of observing oncoming cars travelling on Hoxton Park Road being stationary, which supported her having a green right turn arrow.
There was also a dispute as to a conversation had at the hospital following the collision. Mr Halwagy and his mother visited Mr Zamagias to see how he was. Whilst visiting him, Mr Halwagy said Mr Zamagias apologised to him. Mr Zamagias, however, said he did not say anything.
The primary judge ultimately preferred Mr Zamagias’ evidence. In reaching this decision, the primary judge rejected Mr Halwagy’s evidence that Mr Zamagias had apologised for the accident. The primary judge further considered the perfection of Ms Saltalmachia’s evidence accrued over time.
The primary judge regarded the statements of Ms Saltalmacchia and Mr Halwagy taken immediately following the collision by the attending Police Constable ‘to be a more accurate reflection of what happened, and importantly, her answer to the police officer that she did not look at the T-way light when she started to turn.’
Court of Appeal Proceeding
Ms Saltalmacchia successfully appealed the decision.
There were several grounds of appeal. At the core of the appeal was that the primary judge mistakenly formed the view that Mr Saltalmacchia had not told the police officer that she looked at the T-way light before she started to turn when she in fact had.
The Court of Appeal agreed the primary judge had made a factual error and the error was material and affected the conclusion that was reached.
Whilst the Court of Appeal acknowledged they had power to reach its own conclusion on liability upon a review of the whole of the evidence, they opted to remit the matter back to the District Court for a retrial on liability.
The Court of Appeal considered neither case to be ‘glaringly improbable or fanciful’ and that the respective cases were ‘evenly balanced’ and that the case would ‘ultimately be determined on findings as to credibility and reliability of witnesses.’
Takeaways
Whilst it was clear the primary judge’s reasoning in support of the verdict that was reached contained errors, and that a retrial to deliver a just outcome was required, the decision highlights the difficulty posed in resolving such liability disputes.
When determining liability for a collision at an intersection, or any collision for that matter, consideration should be given to any objective evidence such as dashcam footage, evidence from independent witnesses, the respective damage points or patterns to the vehicles involved in the collision or contemporaneous statements prepared following the collision. It is also important not to overlook the need to make an assessment of the credibility and reliability of any witnesses as, in many cases, this is where liability will be won or lost. It is an amalgamation of all of this evidence that a Court will have regard to when determining fault for a collision on the balance of probabilities.
Should you wish to discuss any of the above, please contact Spencer Pascal on 02 8047 2870 or any member of the Ligeti Partners team on 03 9947 4500.
