Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Refrigerated Roadways Pty Limited

(2009) 77 NSWLR 360; [2009] NSWCA 263

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Standard of care for statutory authority
5. › Budgetary constraints and competing priorities
6. › Whether court capable of determining reasonable care where authority's activities have no private analogue
7. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5C
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Roads authority
5. › Whether duty extends to protection of motorists from criminal conduct of third parties
6. › Roads Act 1993 (NSW)
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Section 42 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
5. › Whether allegation of negligence involves challenge to general allocation of resources
6. › Meaning of 'functions'
7. › Meaning of 'general allocation'
8. › Meaning of 'resources reasonably available to the authority'
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Section 43A Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
5. › Whether acts of negligence done in exercise of 'special statutory power'
6. › Whether section available where not relied on below

Quick Take

A roads authority's duty of care to motorists extends to taking reasonable care to protect them from criminal conduct of third parties (such as objects dropped from overpasses), but breach must be assessed by reference to the authority's actual budgetary constraints, competing priorities, and the systematic approach it adopted to risk management. Section 42 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) only bars allegations of negligence that involve challenging the 'general allocation' of resources, not allegations directed at specific operational failures within an allocated budget. Section 43A does not apply where the acts of negligence alleged are not done in the exercise of a 'special statutory power'.