Appeal Outcome: Appeal allowed - Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal [2008] HCA 19 - 14 May 2008
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: ROYAL v SMURTHWAITE [2007] NSWCA 76 HEARING DATE(S): 6 and 7 February 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
4 April 2007JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; Tobias JA at 104; Basten JA at 105 DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed in part; (2) (a) Set aside the order of the trial judge dismissing the appellant’s cross-claim against the RTA, and; (b) In lieu thereof, order that the RTA pay the appellant one-third of the judgment entered against him in favour of the first respondent; (3) Set aside the costs order made in the District Court and in lieu thereof order that; (a) the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the trial and of the appeal; (b) the RTA pay to the appellant; (i) one-third of the costs payable by the appellant under para (a) above; (ii) the appellant’s costs of the trial relating to his cross-claim against the RTA; (4) Order that -; (a) the appellant pay two-thirds of the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, and ; (b) the RTA pay one-third of the first respondent’s costs of the appeal. CATCHWORDS: TORT – Contributory negligence – liability of RTA for design of highway intersection which had resulted in a number of accidents – collision between two cars at intersection where driver of one was held to be negligent with contributory negligence on the part of the other driver – no interference with that apportionment – RTA liable for defective design in conjunction with primarily liable driver LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW), s 45
Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3, 80, 83, 123, 128, 129, Ch 4 Pt 4.3, Ch 5CASES CITED: Almeida v Universal Dye Works Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2001] NSWCA 156
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 106 CLR 512
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112
Commissioner of Main Roads v Jones (2005) 215 ALJR 418
Ghunaim v Bart [2004] NSWCA 28
Gould v Vaggelas (1983-85) 157 CLR 215
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Haber v Walker [1962] VR 339
Herning v GWS Machinery Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 263
Herning v GWS Machinery Pty Ltd [No. 2] NSWCA 375
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALR 529
Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1999] 3 All ER 897
Sandersoon v Blyth Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533
Sved v Council of the Municipality of Woollahra (1998) NSW Conv R 55-842
Watts v Turpin (1999) 21 WAR 402
Wilson v McLeay (1961) 106 CLR 523PARTIES: Grant Royal - Appellant
George Smurthwaite - First Respondent
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW - Second RespondentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40093/06 COUNSEL: S.J. Harben SC/S.B. Lowe - Appellant
P.R. Hennessy SC/M.G. Gilbert - First Respondent
J. Maconachie QC/T. McKenzie - Second RespondentSOLICITORS: Rankin Nathan, Newcastle - Appellant
Continue reading Royal v Smurthwaite
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Royal v Smurthwaite [2007] NSWCA 76
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a collision at a highway intersection designed by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA). The primary dispute involved the apportionment of liability between the RTA, as the designer of the intersection, and one of the drivers involved in the collision, who was found to be negligent. The court was the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in finding the RTA liable for the defective design of the intersection, and whether the apportionment of contributory negligence between the drivers was appropriate. The court also had to consider the consequential orders regarding the costs of the trial and the appeal.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the RTA was liable for the defective design of the intersection, which contributed to the accident. The court found no reason to interfere with the trial judge's assessment of the primary driver's negligence and the contributory negligence of the other driver. The court's reasoning affirmed the principle that a road authority can be held liable for the negligent design of a highway intersection, particularly when that design contributes to accidents, even in circumstances where another driver is also found to be negligent.
The appeal was dismissed, with the court varying the costs order made by the trial judge. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial, excluding the plaintiff's costs against the RTA. The defendant was also ordered to pay the RTA's costs of the trial, encompassing costs incurred against the plaintiff and in relation to the defendant's cross-claim. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents for the appeal.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in finding the RTA liable for the defective design of the intersection, and whether the apportionment of contributory negligence between the drivers was appropriate. The court also had to consider the consequential orders regarding the costs of the trial and the appeal.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the RTA was liable for the defective design of the intersection, which contributed to the accident. The court found no reason to interfere with the trial judge's assessment of the primary driver's negligence and the contributory negligence of the other driver. The court's reasoning affirmed the principle that a road authority can be held liable for the negligent design of a highway intersection, particularly when that design contributes to accidents, even in circumstances where another driver is also found to be negligent.
The appeal was dismissed, with the court varying the costs order made by the trial judge. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial, excluding the plaintiff's costs against the RTA. The defendant was also ordered to pay the RTA's costs of the trial, encompassing costs incurred against the plaintiff and in relation to the defendant's cross-claim. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents for the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Subject to the variation with respect to the costs order noted below, dismiss the appeal. 2. Vary the costs order made by the trial judge so that it provides: (a) the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial other than the plaintiff's costs as against the RTA; (b) the defendant pay the RTA's costs of the trial being those incurred as against the plaintiff and in relation to the cross-claim brought by the defendant. 3. The Appellant pay the costs of the First and Second Respondents of the appeal.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.