Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal & Anor - [2008] HCATrans 11

[2008] HCATrans 011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S517 of 2007

B e t w e e n -
ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY
Appellant
and
GRANT ROYAL
First Respondent
GEORGE SMURTHWAITE
Second Respondent

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 31 JANUARY 2008, AT 12.22 PM

MR J.E. MACONACHIE, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR T.F. McKENZIE for the appellant. (instructed by McCabe Terrill Lawyers)

MR S.J. HARBEN, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the first respondent with my learned friend, MR S.B. LOWE. (instructed by Rankin & Nathan Lawyers)

GUMMOW J: There is a submitting appearance from the second respondent, Mr Smurthwaite, who I think was the plaintiff in the action. Yes, Mr Maconachie.

MR MACONACHIE: Your Honours, this is an appeal, as your Honours know, from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales which arises out of what is commonly called a T‑bone collision at an intersection.

KIRBY J: Why is it called a T‑bone as distinct from a T‑intersection?

MR MACONACHIE: It is the attitude that the cars describe to one another, your Honour. Mr Smurthwaite’s car was hit amidships on the right‑hand or driver’s side by Mr Royal’s car and the front of his car impacted with Mr Smurthwaite’s car.

KIRBY J: I realise that, but it is the “bone” that I ‑ ‑ ‑

MR MACONACHIE: A bit like a T‑bone steak. I think that is where the expression comes from. It is a commonly used expression. Our very short and simple point is that the Court of Appeal misunderstood the facts and failed to ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: The majority of the Court of Appeal.

MR MACONACHIE: The majority of the Court of Appeal. Your Honour is quite right.

GUMMOW J: We do not want to lose Justice Basten.

MR MACONACHIE: No. We do not want to leave Justice Basten out at all. We say that Justice Basten’s lucid analysis is correct and Justice Santow was wrong and principally because Mr Smurthwaite could see Mr Royal and Mr Royal could see Mr Smurthwaite in more than sufficient time for each of them to have avoided the collision. Accordingly, that which seems ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J: That all has in it the assumption that everyone reacts in an immediate and effective way, whereas this was a very perilous intersection. Lots of crashes were happening. You had plenty of warning of that. All that has to be shown is a contribution. It does not have to be “the”.

MR MACONACHIE: Yes, indeed, your Honour. I see that your Honour has open the document at page 1539 which I want to take your Honours to. You will find that in volume 4 towards the front – that is a photogrammetry study, if that is the right word, brought into existence…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal & Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] HCATrans 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal & Anor*. The dispute concerned the liability of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for injuries sustained by the respondent, Mr. Royal, who was injured when his motorcycle collided with a concrete median strip on a road maintained by the RTA. Mr. Royal alleged that the RTA was negligent in its design, construction, and maintenance of the road, specifically in relation to the median strip.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the RTA owed a duty of care to road users in relation to the design and construction of roads, and if so, whether that duty had been breached in the circumstances of Mr. Royal's accident. The Court also had to consider the principles of statutory immunity and whether the RTA was protected from liability by any relevant legislation.

The High Court, by majority, held that the RTA owed a duty of care to road users to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable risks of injury. This duty extended to the design and construction of roads. The Court found that the median strip, as designed and constructed, presented a foreseeable risk of injury to motorcyclists. The majority reasoned that the RTA had failed to take reasonable precautions to mitigate this risk, such as by providing adequate warning signs or considering alternative designs. The Court affirmed that statutory immunity provisions did not operate to shield the RTA from liability for negligence in this instance.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court that the RTA was liable for Mr. Royal's injuries.

Orders