Reported Decision: (2006) 65 NSWLR 453
(2006) Aust Torts Reports 81-839
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Edson v Roads & Traffic Authority [2006] NSWCA 68
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 01/09/05
JUDGMENT DATE:
7 April 2006JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Ipp JA at 2; Hunt AJA at 170 DECISION: (1) Appeal upheld with costs (2) Orders made by Murray ADCJ granting judgment and orders for costs in favour of the RTA set aside (3) Cross-appeal is upheld with costs (4) Verdict and judgment for Ms Edson in the sum of $231,914 with costs. CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Appellant injured in car accident as she was attempting to cross a freeway - fence and wall blocking freeway was knocked down to allow access - crossing freeway in this way was common practice in the community - liability of road authority - application of common law duty of care to a statutory authority - duty of care - relationship between obviousness of a risk and the existence of a duty of care - Mawlodi v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2001] NSWCA 415 distinguished - presence of allurement - causation - contributory negligence. - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Costs - application for a Bullock order. D LEGISLATION CITED: Roads Act 1993 (NSW), ss 7(1), 61(1), 70(b), 103, 145(1)
Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW), ss 46(1), 52A(1) & 52A(2), 53CASES CITED: Almeida v Universal Dye Works Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 156
Amaca Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-749
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Burwood Council v Byrnes [2002] NSWCA 343
Chotiputhsilpa v Waterhouse [2005] NSWCA 295
Clarke v Coleambally Ski Club [2004] NSWCA 376
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Cardy (1959-60) 104 CLR 274
Commissioner of Main Roads v Jones (2005) 215 ALR 418
Consolidated Broken Hill Ltd v Edwards (2005) Aust Torts Reports 81-815
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1
Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614
Liverpool City Council v Millett (2004) 43 MVR 193
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Mawlodi v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2001] NSWCA 415
McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199
Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council (2005) 211 ALR 764
Phillis v Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65
Pledge v Roads and Traffic Authority (2004) 205 ALR 56
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330
Richmond Valley Council v Standing (2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-679
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1988) 192 CLR 454
RTA v Fletcher Leighton Contractors (2001) 33 MVR 215
RTA v McGregor (2005) 44 MVR 261
Squillacioti v RTA [2002] NSWCA…
Continue reading Edson v Roads and Traffic Authority
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Edson v Roads and Traffic Authority [2006] NSWCA 68
- Case
- [2006] NSWCA 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Edson v Roads and Traffic Authority concerned an appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal following a car accident in which the appellant, Ms Edson, was injured while attempting to cross a freeway. The accident occurred after a fence and wall blocking access to the freeway had been knocked down, creating an opening. It was noted that crossing the freeway in this manner was a common practice within the local community. The appeal concerned the liability of the respondent, the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), for Ms Edson's injuries.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the RTA owed a common law duty of care to Ms Edson, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider the relationship between the obviousness of the risk of crossing the freeway and the existence of a duty of care owed by a statutory authority. The court was also required to determine whether the RTA had taken reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of harm to individuals who might cross the freeway.
The Court of Appeal, in its reasoning, applied established principles of negligence and the common law duty of care owed by statutory authorities. The court found that the RTA had a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to users of the road, including those who might enter it unlawfully. The court considered the common practice of crossing the freeway and the RTA's knowledge of this practice. It was held that the RTA ought to have foreseen the risk of injury to persons crossing the freeway and that the measures taken by the RTA to prevent such crossings were inadequate.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld Ms Edson's appeal, setting aside the previous orders that had granted judgment in favour of the RTA. The court also upheld Ms Edson's cross-appeal, resulting in a verdict and judgment in her favour for the sum of $231,914, together with costs. The RTA was ordered to pay the costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the RTA owed a common law duty of care to Ms Edson, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider the relationship between the obviousness of the risk of crossing the freeway and the existence of a duty of care owed by a statutory authority. The court was also required to determine whether the RTA had taken reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of harm to individuals who might cross the freeway.
The Court of Appeal, in its reasoning, applied established principles of negligence and the common law duty of care owed by statutory authorities. The court found that the RTA had a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to users of the road, including those who might enter it unlawfully. The court considered the common practice of crossing the freeway and the RTA's knowledge of this practice. It was held that the RTA ought to have foreseen the risk of injury to persons crossing the freeway and that the measures taken by the RTA to prevent such crossings were inadequate.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld Ms Edson's appeal, setting aside the previous orders that had granted judgment in favour of the RTA. The court also upheld Ms Edson's cross-appeal, resulting in a verdict and judgment in her favour for the sum of $231,914, together with costs. The RTA was ordered to pay the costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal upheld with costs (2) Orders made by Murray ADCJ granting judgment and orders for costs in favour of the RTA set aside (3) Cross-appeal is upheld with costs (4) Verdict and judgment for Ms Edson in the sum of $231,914 with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.