Alinta Gas Networks Pty Ltd v James & Anor

[2007] WASCA 155

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Scope of duty
5. › Whether duty extends to preventing harm caused by unauthorised acts of third parties
6. › Plastic gas pipes placed on verge in preparation for laying
7. › Pipe moved by third party onto road 30 metres away
8. › Motorcyclist injured after hitting pipe
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Standard of care
4. › Response to foreseeable risk of third party interference
5. › Whether reasonable response required securing objects left on verge
6. › Whether reasonableness may require no response to a foreseeable risk
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Causation
4. › Whether evidence sufficient to establish causal link
5. › Whether hypothesis that weather conditions moved pipe was speculation or conjecture
6. › Distinction between inference and conjecture

Quick Take

A person who places objects on a verge adjacent to a road does not owe a duty of care to road users to secure those objects against the risk of a third party removing them and placing them on the road, even where such interference is foreseeable. The duty of care owed to road users does not extend to guarding against injury resulting from the unauthorised acts of third parties in the absence of a special relationship, prior incidents, or an assumption of responsibility. The analogy with householders placing rubbish bins on verges confirms that the reasonable response to the risk of third party interference with objects on verges is to do nothing.