HAISMAN v ALBURY WODONGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 134

HAISMAN v ALBURY WODONGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 134

The appellant failed to establish that the accident was caused by a design fault or the absence of warning signs. The pathway met reasonable design standards, and the absence of warning signs was not causative as the appellant knew of the danger. The findings by the trial judge were open on the evidence and disclosed no appealable error.

Parties
Appellant: Haisman; First Respondent/second Cross Respondent: Albury Wodonga Development Corporation; Second Respondent: Rural City of Wodonga; First Cross Respondent: Road Corporation (Vic Roads)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Claim for Damages at Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence—design of Bicycle Pathway, Duty of Care—failure to Construct Dual Pathway, Absence of Warning Signs, Findings of Fact—conflicting Evidence
Tort Law Appellate Law Negligence—design of Bicycle Pathway Duty of Care—failure to Construct Dual Pathway Absence of Warning Signs Findings of Fact—conflicting Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haisman

Appellant

Albury Wodonga Development Corporation

First Respondent/second Cross Respondent

Rural City of Wodonga

Second Respondent

Road Corporation (Vic Roads)

First Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Claim for Damages at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were negligent in the design and construction of the bicycle pathway under Number One Bridge.
  2. 2 Whether failure to erect warning signs constituted a breach of duty causing the accident.
  3. 3 Duty of the trial judge to resolve conflicting factual versions.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish that the accident was caused by a design fault or the absence of warning signs. The pathway met reasonable design standards, and the absence of warning signs was not causative as the appellant knew of the danger. The findings by the trial judge were open on the evidence and disclosed no appealable error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.