Commissioner of Main Roads v Jones

The Commissioner of Main Roads (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute concerned the appellant's alleged negligence in failing to take adequate steps to warn drivers of the risk of colliding with wild animals on a highway, which resulted in the respondent driver sustaining injuries when his car struck a wild horse.

The High Court was required to determine whether the appellant, as the body responsible for the care, control, and management of highways, had breached its duty of care to the respondent. Specifically, the court considered whether the appellant should have been aware of the attraction of animals to water sources near the accident site and whether it ought to have exercised its power to reduce the speed limit or erect warning signs. Further issues included whether the Full Court was justified in overturning the trial judge's findings regarding the danger posed by animals on the highway, whether any failure to reduce the speed limit or erect a warning sign caused or contributed to the respondent's injuries, and whether material discovered by the appellant between the trial and the appeal would have warranted a different outcome.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent's injuries were caused by his own grossly excessive speed and his determined flouting of speed limits. The court held that the presence or absence of warning signs in the vicinity of the accident would have had no bearing on the outcome. While acknowledging the appellant's failure to make proper discovery, the court scrutinised the fresh evidence and concluded it was not of a kind or quality that would have warranted a different result at trial. The court noted that the discovered material primarily concerned the dangers of straying stock rather than feral creatures, and that the relevant stretch of road was not shown to have a high percentage of accidents involving straying animals. The court also considered the potential for warning signs to be misleading and the appellant's policy of maintaining the credibility of such signs by only installing them where a hazard was considerably greater than normal.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia be set aside, and that the appeal to that Court be dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent of the appeal to the High Court.