Kollas v Scurrah

The appeal in *Kollas v Scurrah* concerned the apportionment of liability arising from a collision involving an oversize vehicle. The appellant, Mr Kollas, was the driver of an oversize vehicle that had broken down on the road, and the respondent, Mr Scurrah, was the driver of a following vehicle that collided with the stationary oversize vehicle. The dispute centred on whether Mr Kollas had taken adequate steps to warn other road users of the hazard his vehicle presented.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Mr Kollas had breached his duty of care to other road users by failing to adequately warn of the hazardous circumstances created by his broken-down oversize vehicle, and whether Mr Scurrah had been contributorily negligent. Specifically, the court considered what constituted a "reasonable warning" in the context of moving in "hazardous circumstances" or "hazardous conditions" under the *Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management (Road Rules) Regulation 1999*, and whether the appellant's use of flashing lights or hazard lights met this standard.

The majority of the Court of Appeal (Bell JA, Mason P agreeing) found that Mr Kollas had breached his duty of care. They reasoned that the mere use of flashing lights was insufficient to constitute a reasonable warning given the size and nature of the vehicle and the circumstances of its breakdown on the road. The court held that a reasonable driver in Mr Kollas's position would have taken further precautions to alert oncoming traffic to the significant hazard. The majority dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the primary judge's assessment of liability.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.