Driver may be held Responsible for Truck Collision


Landbridge Transport, the company whose truck was involved in a crash with another heavy vehicle in 2012 has won its appeal in the truck collision case.

The transport operator is pursuing the driver involved in the incident, who it blames for negligently damaging one of its vehicles.

According to media reports, The Supreme Court of New South Wales has overturned a ruling that held the transport company liable for the collision which happened in 2012, involving one of its vehicles and another truck.

The Judge in the case, Geoff Bellew recently ordered the case to be heard again after an appeal from Landbridge Transport.

The case is another example of the importance of Chain of Responsibility training for drivers and everyone involved in the logistics supply chain. Drivers must be aware of what the law says about the road freight industry and their duty in it. 

In this particular case, Landbridge Transport is blaming truck driver Garry Buckley for causing the crash by entering the lane of its Kenworth in Sydney and hitting it with a trailer that he was towing. The collision caused damage to the truck’s handrail, steps, tyre, fuel tank panel, guards and paintwork.

Buckley, on the other hand, claims Landbridge Transport driver, Nathan Stinson moved into his lane and was responsible for the damage caused.

The matter was heard before court in 2013 after Landbridge Transport reported it. During the 2013 court proceedings the magistrate, Geoffrey Bradd, found that Buckley was travelling in his lane and that Stinson was responsible for the damage caused. However, Bellew says Magistrate Geoffrey Bradd failed to provide reasons for rejecting Stinson’s evidence.

The following excerpt from an article on quotes a written ruling from Bellew:

“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.”


Stinson goes on to state that he was in the centre lane next to Buckley, who was on his left when Buckley’s trailer hit the kerb and bounced off into his lane. It then collided with his truck. He also states that despite him signalling, Buckley failed to pull over. Stinson went on to state:

“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 then mentally recorded the truck’s details and Landbridge Transport then pursued the matter further.