Roads and Maritime Services v Grant

In *Roads and Maritime Services v Grant*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered a negligence claim brought by a motorcyclist who sustained severe injuries after colliding with a median strip. The motorcyclist alleged that the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) breached its duty of care by failing to install a "Keep Left" sign at the point where the median strip recommenced after an intersection. The central dispute revolved around whether this omission constituted a breach of the RMS's duty of care to road users.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the RMS's failure to install a "Keep Left" sign at the recommencement of the median strip was a breach of its duty of care, specifically in relation to whether such an installation was mandated by the relevant Australian Standard. Secondly, the court had to consider the issue of causation, namely whether, had a "Keep Left" sign been present, the respondent's motorcycle would not have come into contact with the nose of the median strip. The court also considered whether the RMS was immune from statutory liability under section 43A of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) in the exercise of its special statutory power.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Common Law Division. The court found that the RMS had not breached its duty of care. The reasoning focused on the interpretation of the relevant Australian Standard, concluding that it did not require the installation of a "Keep Left" sign in the circumstances of this case. Consequently, the court determined that the failure to install the sign was not negligent. Furthermore, the court found that even if there had been a breach, causation had not been established, as it was not proven that the absence of the sign caused the accident. The court also found that the immunity provisions of section 43A of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) were not applicable in this instance. The final orders included judgment for the Roads and Maritime Services, with the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the trial and the respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs in the Court of Appeal.