KOLLAS v SCURRAH [2008] NSWCA 17

KOLLAS v SCURRAH [2008] NSWCA 17

The respondent was not in breach of the duty of care owed to the appellant as a road user, as the vehicle displayed an adequate warning sign as required by permit conditions, and neither hazard lights nor flashing emergency lights were reasonably required in the circumstances. Even if there had been a breach, the evidence indicated that the lack of such lights was not causative of the collision.

Parties
Appellant: William George Kollas; Respondent: Kenneth Albert Scurrah
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Apportionment of Liability, Contributory Negligence, Causation, Road Safety, Oversize Vehicles
Tort Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Apportionment of Liability Contributory Negligence Causation Road Safety +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William George Kollas

Appellant

Kenneth Albert Scurrah

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was negligent for failing to provide additional warning (hazard lights/flashing lights) for slow moving oversize vehicle
  2. 2 Whether respondent's breach of duty caused the collision
  3. 3 Extent of contributory negligence by appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not in breach of the duty of care owed to the appellant as a road user, as the vehicle displayed an adequate warning sign as required by permit conditions, and neither hazard lights nor flashing emergency lights were reasonably required in the circumstances. Even if there had been a breach, the evidence indicated that the lack of such lights was not causative of the collision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed
  • The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs