Sved & Anor v Di Blasio

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning a dispute between the appellants, Sved and Anor, and the respondent, Di Blasio. The case involved a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent, as the driver of a vehicle, owed a duty of care to the appellants, who were passengers in that vehicle, in circumstances where the appellants were aware of the respondent's intoxication and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. The court was required to determine the extent to which a driver's intoxication affects the duty of care owed to passengers, and the principles of voluntary assumption of risk in such a context.

The High Court held that a driver owes a duty of care to their passengers irrespective of the driver's intoxication. This duty is not negated by the passenger's knowledge of the driver's intoxication or their voluntary assumption of the risk. The court reasoned that the duty of care arises from the relationship between driver and passenger and the inherent dangers of driving. While a passenger's voluntary assumption of risk may be relevant to the assessment of contributory negligence, it does not extinguish the driver's primary duty of care. The court affirmed that the law does not permit a driver to escape responsibility for negligent driving by relying on a passenger's consent to travel with an intoxicated driver.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of damages.