Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a police highway patrol officer, the appellant, who sustained injuries in a single motorcycle accident while escorting a motorcade. The accident occurred when a boom gate was lowered in error on a motorway that had been closed to civilian traffic and was being operated under police directions. The appellant brought proceedings against the operator of the motorway, Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, and the State, as his employer.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Leighton Contractors owed the appellant a duty of care, and if so, the scope of that duty in circumstances where the motorway was closed and the operator was acting under police directions. The court also had to consider whether the State, as the appellant's employer, breached its duty of care, particularly given its limited control over the technical aspects of the motorway operation and the adequacy of instructions provided to Leighton Contractors. Further issues included the correct test for apportionment between multiple tortfeasors and the standard to be applied for contributory negligence under the *Civil Liability Act 2002*.

The court reasoned that Leighton Contractors owed a duty of care to the appellant, as a police officer performing urgent duties on the motorway, to operate the boom gates safely. This duty was not negated by the fact that the motorway was closed to civilian traffic or that Leighton Contractors was acting under police directions. The court found that Leighton Contractors breached this duty by failing to ensure the boom gate was not lowered while the motorcade was proceeding. Regarding the State, the court held that while it had a duty to ensure the safety of its officers, it had not breached that duty, as it had provided sufficient instructions to Leighton Contractors and did not have control over the technical operation of the boom gates. The court also considered the apportionment of liability and contributory negligence, ultimately finding that Leighton Contractors was 75% liable and the State was not liable.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the order regarding the appellant's costs against the State being set aside. The respondents (Leighton Contractors and the State) were ordered to pay the appellant 25% of his costs of the appeal, borne proportionally to their respective liabilities. Specific orders were made regarding the costs of cross-appeals between Leighton Contractors and the State, with each party generally bearing their own costs in relation to their respective cross-appeals.