Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors

The appeal concerned a negligence claim brought by the appellant against the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Frece, and Bombala Council. The appellant alleged that the respondents' failure to properly signpost roadworks caused her to believe the road was one-way, leading to a collision with a truck. The trial judge found that the appellant had failed to prove causation, specifically that the absence of a barrier on the opposite side of the road caused her confusion. This finding was based on the judge's interpretation of statements the appellant had made to the police at the scene and to the Victorian Traffic Accident Commission (VTAC) nearly a year later.

The legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge erred in his findings on causation, whether those findings were based on a misapprehension of the evidence, and whether the appellant was contributorily negligent. The appellant argued that the trial judge's findings on causation were wrong in law and that his credit finding, which underpinned the causation finding, was misplaced. The court was also required to consider whether appellate intervention was warranted and to determine the appropriate orders, including the allocation of costs.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's interpretation of the appellant's statements was flawed. Specifically, the court noted that the trial judge had failed to appreciate the full extent of the appellant's claim and the evidence presented, particularly the appellant's later, more detailed statement to the VTAC. This statement indicated that signs gave her the impression she was entering a one-way track and that she never saw signs indicating a two-way section. The court concluded that the trial judge's credit finding was misplaced and that his findings on causation were wrong in law. However, the court also considered whether a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred, and whether appellate intervention was warranted.

The appeal was allowed in part and dismissed in part. The verdict for Bombala Council was set aside, and a verdict and judgment were entered for the appellant against Bombala Council for damages to be assessed. The matter was remitted to the District Court for a rehearing limited to damages against Bombala Council. The verdicts in favour of the RTA and Frece were confirmed. Bombala Council was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and at first instance. The appellant was ordered to pay Frece's costs of the appeal. Written submissions were to be filed regarding the costs of the RTA at trial and on appeal.