Watt v Copmanhurst Shire Council [2005] NSWSC 7
The Council owed road users a duty to take reasonable precautions against the foreseeable risk that loose gravel from its roadworks would build up on the bitumen and cause loss of control. On the balance of probabilities, loose gravel was present where the plaintiff braked and manoeuvred to avoid a kangaroo, causing loss of traction and the accident. The Council breached its duty by failing to maintain an adequate cleaning system and by failing to warn of loose gravel, and those breaches caused the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent because he travelled at 80 kph despite roadwork and 60 kilometre signs and the visible changed condition of the road surface, so...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 February 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Common Law Division Negligence Claim for Damages for Spinal Injury After a Vehicle Left the Roadway / Trial on Liability and Contributory Negligence After Settlement of the Claim Against the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales
- Outcome
- Negligence and contributory negligence were proved; damages were awarded to the plaintiff reduced by one-third, with costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- ['duty of Care to Road Users' 'loose Gravel on Bitumen Road Surface' 'failure to Clean Road Surface' 'failure to Warn' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Damages']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Common Law Division Negligence Claim for Damages for Spinal Injury After a Vehicle Left the Roadway / Trial on Liability and Contributory Negligence After Settlement of the Claim Against the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a kangaroo appeared and prompted the plaintiff to take evasive action and brake.' 'Whether loose gravel was present on the bitumen road surface where the plaintiff lost control of his vehicle.' 'Whether the defendant Council breached its duty of care by failing to clean loose gravel from the roadway and failing to warn motorists of loose gravel.' "Whether any breach by the defendant Council caused the plaintiff's accident and injury." 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by travelling at 80 kph despite roadworks signs and the visible condition of the road surface.' 'What reduction for contributory negligence was just and equitable.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Council owed road users a duty to take reasonable precautions against the foreseeable risk that loose gravel from its roadworks would build up on the bitumen and cause loss of control. On the balance of probabilities, loose gravel was present where the plaintiff braked and manoeuvred to avoid a kangaroo, causing loss of traction and the accident. The Council breached its duty by failing to maintain an adequate cleaning system and by failing to warn of loose gravel, and those breaches caused the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent because he travelled at 80 kph despite roadwork and 60 kilometre signs and the visible changed condition of the road surface, so...
Court Disposition
Negligence and contributory negligence were proved; damages were awarded to the plaintiff reduced by one-third, with costs reserved.
Orders
- ['I find negligence to have been proved.' 'I find contributory negligence to have been proved.' 'Total damages are agreed at $6,500,000.' "I find it to be just and equitable, having regard to the plaintiff's share in the responsibility for the damage, that the plaintiff's damages should be reduced by one third."...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment