Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse

The appeal in *Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse* concerned a motor vehicle accident where the appellant, a pedestrian, was struck by the first respondent's vehicle while crossing the Anzac Bridge. The appellant also sued the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), alleging negligence in the design and construction of the bridge, specifically regarding the adequacy of signage for a pedestrian footpath located underneath. The appeal was heard by Beazley, Giles, and Ipp JJA.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the driver of the motor vehicle breached their duty of care to the pedestrian, and whether the RTA breached its duty of care to pedestrians by failing to adequately signpost the existence of the pedestrian footpath. The court also considered whether the appellant's presence on the bridge constituted contributory negligence and whether the trial judge's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Furthermore, an application was made for the court to view the accident site, raising questions about the admissibility of fresh evidence and whether the site had materially altered since the accident.

The Court of Appeal found that the driver of the motor vehicle had not breached their duty of care, as the appellant's presence on the bridge was unexpected. However, the court determined that the RTA had breached its duty of care to pedestrians. The court also dismissed the RTA's application to have the verdict confirmed in its favour. The appeal was allowed in part, with the verdict in favour of the RTA being set aside and a verdict entered for the appellant against the RTA, with damages to be assessed. The matter was remitted to the District Court for a re-hearing limited to the assessment of damages. The second respondent's notice of motion was dismissed.