Bevan v Coolahan

The appeal concerned a motor vehicle accident where the occupants of the vehicle were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise to obtain illicit drugs. The central dispute revolved around whether the driver owed a duty of care to the passenger in these circumstances, and if so, whether the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), specifically section 54, displaced the principles established in *Miller v Miller* (2011) 242 CLR 446. The court also considered whether the statutory purpose of criminal laws was incongruous with a driver owing a duty of care to a passenger, and whether the passenger was complicit in the driver's offences. Finally, the primary judge's assessment of contributory negligence was challenged.

The Court of Appeal held that the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) did not displace the common law principles established in *Miller v Miller*. The court reasoned that the statutory purpose of criminal laws, which is to punish and deter criminal conduct, was not incongruous with a driver owing a duty of care to a passenger, even when engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. The court found that the passenger's complicity in the driver's offences did not negate the existence of a duty of care. Furthermore, the court determined that the primary judge's assessment of contributory negligence was not erroneous.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was also dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs in the Court of Appeal.