Thomas Panzermotor suffered injury following an accident on Sydney's light rail and is considering filing suit againstTransport NSW for both negligence and related mental harm due to those injuries. He claims that when he tried to board the car, the tram lurched and he was thrown violently back onto the platform, severely injuring his shoulder. Transport's primary defence would be that Panzermotor jumped at the tram car as the doors were closing when he realised that the train network was down and, as a result, he'd have to wait anywhere between 15 minutes and a week for the next light rail tram to arrive.

Before Panzermotor files suit, he sends a demand letter to Transport NSW outlining his claims. Transport's counsel suggests that the parties pursue mediation in order to avoid needing to involve the court. At that mediation, Transport NSW shows Panzermotor a letter from its safety inspector that states that at 1% of all stops made by the light rail, the cars have a tendency to jump right before the doors begin to close. The mediation is unsuccessful and Panzermotor files a statement of claim in the Supreme Court, alleging $800,000 in damages. At the first directions hearing, Transport submits that it is not aware of any evidence that would indicate that Panzermotor has a claim at all and that it will seek summary dismissal. Panzermotor's counsel raises the letter shown at the mediation and Transport objects.

Q1: Is the letter likely to be allowed as evidence, should Transport pursue its argument?

Q2: Advise Panzermotor whether the defence is likely to be able to use this statement against him at trial.

Q3: Advise Panzermotor about the likelihood of this evidence being allowed.

Q4: Advise Panzermotor about the likelihood of the statement being allowed.

Q5: How is the court likely to resolve the issue?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer Q1 The letter from Transport NSWs safety inspector is likely to be allowed as evidence if Transport pursues its argument While there may be obj... View the full answer