Liverpool City Council v Millett & Anor; Liverpool City Council v WadeLiverpool City Council v Millett & Anor

In Liverpool City Council v Millett & Anor and Liverpool City Council v Wade, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered appeals arising from separate District Court proceedings concerning a motor vehicle accident. The primary dispute involved claims of negligence against the Liverpool City Council, as the road authority responsible for the road where the accident occurred, and cross-claims between other parties involved. The accident occurred on a road without a marked centreline, and the plaintiff's vehicle was partly on the incorrect side of the road at the time of the collision.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Liverpool City Council owed a duty of care to road users in relation to the condition of the road, specifically the absence of a centreline marking, and if so, whether that duty was breached. The court also had to determine whether the principles of negligence and contributory negligence were mutually exclusive in this context and how any findings of negligence and contributory negligence should affect the apportionment of liability and damages.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that a road authority owes a duty of care to road users to maintain the road in a reasonably safe condition. The absence of a centreline marking on a road, particularly one with a bend, could constitute a breach of that duty if it created an unreasonable risk of harm to drivers. The court applied principles of negligence, considering foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the authority's actions or omissions. It also addressed the concept of contributory negligence, finding that a plaintiff's conduct could contribute to their injuries even if the defendant was also negligent, and that these concepts were not mutually exclusive.

The court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the original District Court orders. In one case, judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant, with cross-claims dismissed and costs awarded accordingly. In the other case, judgment was entered for the plaintiff against both the first and second defendants, with specific apportionments of liability and costs between the defendants and the plaintiff. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the appeals and granted liberty to apply to amend the orders to accurately reflect findings on contributory negligence.