Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW v Jelfs

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (RTA) against a decision of the Supreme Court of NSW concerning the liability of the RTA for injuries sustained by Mr. Jelfs. Mr. Jelfs had been injured when his motorcycle collided with a concrete median strip on a road maintained by the RTA. The dispute centred on whether the RTA owed a duty of care to Mr. Jelfs and, if so, whether it had breached that duty by failing to adequately warn of the hazard posed by the median strip.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the RTA owed a duty of care to road users in relation to the design and maintenance of road infrastructure, and if such a duty existed, whether the RTA had breached that duty by failing to provide adequate warnings about the median strip. The court also considered the extent to which the common law duty of care owed by a road authority could be modified or excluded by statutory provisions, particularly those relating to the exercise of statutory powers and discretions.

The High Court, by majority, held that the RTA did owe a duty of care to road users, including Mr. Jelfs, in relation to the design and maintenance of the road. Gleeson CJ and Kirby J, in their respective judgments, emphasised that the existence of a statutory power to construct and maintain roads did not absolve the RTA of its common law duty to exercise reasonable care. They found that the RTA had failed to take reasonable steps to warn road users of the inherent danger posed by the median strip, particularly given its colour and placement, and that this failure constituted a breach of its duty of care. The court rejected arguments that the RTA's actions were protected by the exercise of statutory discretion, finding that the failure to warn was not a mere error of judgment but a failure to address a foreseeable risk.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Supreme Court of NSW. Consequently, the RTA was found liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Jelfs.