South Australian Ambulance Transport Incorporated v Wahlheim

The South Australian Ambulance Transport Incorporated appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute arose from a collision between an ambulance owned by the appellant and a motor car driven by the respondent, Mr. Wahlheim, at an intersection. The magistrate had found both drivers negligent, but concluded that the respondent's negligence was the effective cause of the collision and entered judgment for the appellant. The Supreme Court, however, set aside this judgment, finding that the respondent's negligence did not contribute to his injuries, and remitted the case for assessment of damages.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the respondent's failure to keep a proper lookout constituted negligence that caused or contributed to the collision, and the extent to which the exemption of ambulances from certain traffic regulations affected the duties of both drivers. Specifically, the court had to consider the implications of Section 131 of the Road Traffic Act 1934-1945 (S.A.), which requires drivers to give way to vehicles on their right, and Section 156a, which exempts ambulances from this requirement.

A majority of the High Court (Rich, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ., with Latham C.J. dissenting) held that the respondent's failure to keep a proper lookout was a cause of the collision. The court reasoned that while ambulances are exempt from the rule requiring drivers to give way to vehicles on their right, this exemption does not absolve them from a general duty of care. However, the majority found that the respondent, despite the ambulance's exemption, was negligent in not looking to his left sooner. They concluded that this failure to maintain a proper lookout directly led to the collision, and therefore, the magistrate's original judgment in favour of the appellant should be restored.

The High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order of the Supreme Court, and restored the judgment of the Local Court. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appellant in the High Court.