Roads and Traffic Authority v Snape, Roads and Traffic Authority v Trimbak Pty Ltd

[1999] NSWCA 47

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Motor vehicle accidents
3. › Roadworks
4. › Duty to provide adequate delineation of road edge
5. › Whether warning devices placed in excavation trench below road pavement were adequate
1. Negligence
2. › Causation
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Multiple possible causal explanations
5. › Whether trial judge's failure to make express finding on causation required new trial
1. Negligence
2. › Foreseeability
3. › Sequential accidents
4. › Whether scattering of warning devices by first accident made second accident foreseeable
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Departure from pleaded case
4. › Whether finding of inadequate warning devices open where pleaded case was no warning devices
5. › Evidence led without objection outside pleadings

Quick Take

Where a trial judge's findings on negligence are sound but the judge fails to make an express finding on causation where multiple possible causal explanations exist, the appellate court may order a new trial limited to causation while preserving the negligence findings. A Sanderson costs order requires that the unsuccessful defendant's conduct led the plaintiff to join the successful defendant; the order is not appropriate where the plaintiff's decision to join was driven by inconsistencies in the plaintiff's own case. The fragility and impermanence of roadworks warning devices may make sequential accidents foreseeable.