Davies v Roads and Traffic Authority - [2002] NSWSC 101

CITATION: Davies v Roads & Traffic Authority & Anor [2002] NSWSC 101

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 11867 of 1993

HEARING DATE(S): 26 - 30 November, 3 - 6 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 28 February 2002

PARTIES :

Rohan Godfrey Davies by his tutor Leonard Davies (Plaintiff)
v
Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales (First Defendant)
Sydney Electricity (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Malpass

COUNSEL : Mr P Webb QC/Mr R C Tonner (Plaintiff)
Mr J E Maconachie QC/Mr P R Sternberg (First Defendant)
Mr P Morris (Second Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Haviland Lawyers (Plaintiff)
I V Knight - Crown Solicitor (First Defendant)
Minter Ellison (Second Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Plaintiff's vehicle travelling in wet conditions with heavy rain - goes out of control in or about intersection - collides with power pole - plaintiff attributes accident to water on highway - first defendant's liability for negligence in and about design of the roadway.

LEGISLATION CITED: N/A

CASES CITED: Brodie v Singleton Shire Council [2001] 75 ALJR 992.
David Jones Limited v Bates [2001] NSWCA 233.
Sabatino v The State of New South Wales and Others [2001] NSWCA 380.
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29.
The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney v Kondrajian [2001] NSWCA 308.

DECISION: See Paragraph 107.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Master Malpass

Thursday 28 February 2002

11867 of 1993 Rohan Godfrey Davies by his tutor Leonard Davies v Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales & Anor

JUDGMENT

1 Master Malpass: The plaintiff suffered serious personal injury in a motor vehicle accident that apparently took place at about 2.50 am on Sunday 4 February 1990. Prior to the accident, he was driving a 1976 Holden Kingswood Sedan along a southbound section of the Pacific Highway near Turramurra and approaching traffic lights at its intersection with Fox Valley Road. The highway curved to the left in the area of the approach. There were traffic lights at the intersection. There was high-pressure sodium street lighting in the area north of the intersection. The speed limit was 60 kph.

2 He was driving in wet conditions in an area known for intense thunder storms (the Mona Vale Ridge). It was raining. There were inconsistencies between recorded rainfall and the evidence given by witnesses. There were also different versions given by witnesses concerning the conditions.

3 Significant aspects of the accident itself were not observed by any witness. What happened is a matter for deduction in circumstances where direct evidence is limited and the evidence that is available is plagued by conflict. It is alleged that his vehicle encountered a concentrated flow of water on the road surface and went out of control. It is known that his vehicle went to the left of the highway, mounted the kerb and collided with an electricity pole. The evidence has seen inter alia the concepts of aquaplaning and yawing…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Davies v Roads and Traffic Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 101
Decision Date: 28 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Davies v Roads and Traffic Authority involves the plaintiff, Davies, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Davies was driving in wet conditions with heavy rain and lost control of his vehicle in or about an intersection. The vehicle subsequently collided with a power pole. Davies attributed the accident to the water on the highway and brought an action against the first defendant, the Roads and Traffic Authority, for negligence in and about the design of the roadway.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Roads and Traffic Authority owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether that duty was breached, leading to the accident. The plaintiff argued that the design of the roadway, including the intersection, was inherently dangerous and contributed to the loss of vehicle control in wet conditions. The court had to consider whether the Roads and Traffic Authority could be held liable for any design defects that may have contributed to the accident.

The court determined that the Roads and Traffic Authority owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. However, the court found that the plaintiff's own actions, specifically driving at a high speed in adverse weather conditions, were the primary cause of the accident. The court held that the design of the roadway did not constitute a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff, as the intersection was not inherently dangerous. The court concluded that the plaintiff's actions were the sole cause of the accident, and therefore, the Roads and Traffic Authority was not liable for negligence.

As a result, the plaintiff's action against the Roads and Traffic Authority was dismissed. The court did not grant any relief to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's claim for damages was unsuccessful.

Orders