Trent Jonathan Smith v Robert H Jones Investments Pty Ltd

2025/00137701

MOTOR ACCIDENTS – on 26 May 2018, Mr Trent Smith was transporting 17 horses to a cutting horse competition at Tamworth – when Mr Smith was driving he was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident near Dubbo – Mr Smith’s father was killed and his nephew was seriously injured – one horse was killed, and another eight were euthanised at the scene – the remaining eight horses were taken to a local equine vet – one of the surviving horses was Moore Metal, owned by Robert H Jones Investments Pty Ltd (the first respondent) – before the accident Moore Metal had been a competitive cutting horse and breeding stallion – the respondents claimed damages from Mr Smith as a result of the injuries sustained by Moore Metal in the accident – at hearing Mr Smith admitted liability for breach of contract, for breach of a duty of care in negligence and as bailees for reward – the hearing only involved a question as to what sum of money the appellants ought to be ordered to pay – the primary judge found in favour of the respondents in the sum of $78,132.25 – the primary judge further ordered that the appellant pay the respondents’ costs – whether the primary judge erred in awarding damages based in veterinary fees in the treatment of Moore Metal without deducting from those fees additional fees that would have been incurred but for the injury – whether the primary judge erred in awarding a sum of money based on the future expenses of Moore Metal, a chattel, based on inapplicable principles drawn from personal injury cases – whether the primary judge erred in awarding a sum of money based on both the future expenses of Moore Metal as well as the diminished value of Moore Metal – whether the primary judge erred in applying the principles applicable to a profit-earning chattel to a case where the respondent did not establish that Moore Metal was a profit-earning chattel – whether the primary judge erred in considering the issue of failure to mitigate by the respondents – whether the primary judge erred in ordering that the appellants were to pay the first respondent’s costs.