Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors [2006] NSWCA 229 (17 August 2006)

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors [2006] NSWCA 229

FILE NUMBER(S):
40744/05

HEARING DATE(S): 17 & 19 May 2006

DECISION DATE: 17/08/2006

PARTIES:
Anne Marie Coombes (Appellant)
Roads & Traffic Authority (First Respondent)
Bombala Council (Second Respondent)
Stephen John Frece (Third Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA Ipp JA Basten JA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2269/02

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Armitage DCJ

COUNSEL:
H J Marshall SC; E Beilby (Appellant)
D T Miller (First Respondent)
D Davies SC; N Polin (Second Respondent)
W Fitzsimmons; C Mulvey (Third Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Beilby Poulden Costello (Appellant)
Moray & Agnew (First Respondent)
Phillips Fox (Second Respondent)
QBE Insurance Limited (Third Respondent)

CATCHWORDS:
NEGLIGENCE – causation – failure of trial judge to appreciate extent of claim – failure of trial judge to appreciate evidence presented – findings on causation wrong in law
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – appellant not contributorally negligent
JUDGMENT – findings on causation based on credit finding – credit finding misplaced – appellate intervention not warranted
JUDGMENT – failure to deal with aspect of appellant’s submission – no substantial wrong or miscarriage – appellate intervention not warranted

LEGISLATION CITED:
Roads Act 1993 (NSW) ss 7(4), 61(1)(a), 145(3), 207
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 51 r 23

DECISION:
1. Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
2. Set aside the verdict for the second respondent (Bombala Council)
3. Verdict and judgment for the appellant against the second respondent (Bombala Council), for damages in an amount to be assessed
4. As against the second respondent (Bombala Council), remit the matter to the District Court for rehearing, limited to damages
5. Otherwise confirm the verdicts in favour of the first and third respondents (the RTA and Frece)
6. In respect of the claim between the appellant and the second respondent (Bombala Council), order the second respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and at first instance
7. Order the appellant to pay the third respondent’s (Frece’s) costs of the appeal
8. The appellant and the first and second respondents (the RTA and Bombala Council) are to file written submissions as to the costs of the first respondent at trial and on appeal.

JUDGMENT:

Facts

The appellant was injured when her vehicle collided with a vehicle being driven by the third respondent. The accident took place on a two-way portion of the old Monaro Highway which was being used as a detour while the second respondent, under contract with the first respondent, was carrying out road works on the new section of the Highway. The appellant had been driving southbound along the Highway and was of the belief that the detour was one-way.

The appellant brought proceedings against each of the respondents alleging negligence against the first and second respondents due to inadequate traffic control measures at the detour including the absence of a barricade for traffic travelling north, and against the third respondent for driving at a speed that was too fast in the circumstances. The trial judge found in favour of each of the respondents. His Honour determined that the appellant was not confused by the absence of a barricade for traffic travelling north, and as that was the basis upon which she had conducted her case, any negligence of the first and second respondents did not cause the appellant’s accident. As against the third respondent, his Honour held that although he was travelling too fast in the circumstances the speed of the third respondent did not causally contribute to the accident which would have occurred in any event.

The appeal is brought on the grounds that the trial judge’s findings in relation to causation as against each of the respondents were wrong in law.

Held in relation to the first and second respondents per Beazley JA (Ipp and Basten JJA agreeing):

(i) The trial judge’s findings on causation were wrong in law due to the failure of his Honour to appreciate both the extent of the claim made by the appellant and certain aspects of the evidence.

(ii) The design of the traffic control plan for the detour was adequate at the time it was prepared.

(iii) The traffic control measures in place on the night of the accident were inadequate.

(iv) The second respondent was responsible for the traffic control measures and was liable in negligence to the appellant. The first respondent had no responsibility for those measures as at the date of the accident and was thus not liable.

(v) The trial judge’s findings on causation relied in part on a credit finding. However, as the trial judge failed to appreciate the nature of the case and certain evidence, the credit finding was misplaced and does not protect the trial judge’s finding on causation from appellate interference.

(vi) The appellant was not contributorally negligent. The circumstances were not such that she ought to have seen the headlights of the third respondent’s vehicle, nor that she ought to have kept to the left-hand side of the road.

Held in relation to the third respondent per Beazley JA (Ipp and Basten JJA agreeing):

(vii) The third respondent was negligent in failing to observe the advisory speed sign, however the accident would have happened even had he done so and therefore the third respondent’s speed did not cause the accident.

(viii) The trial judge erred in failing to deal with the case put by the appellant that the collision and resulting injuries to the appellant were more serious because of the speed at which the third respondent was travelling. However, as there was no evidence to support that case there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage, and appellate intervention is not warranted.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

1 BEAZLEY JA: The appellant was injured on 18 April 1999, when her vehicle collided with another vehicle driven by Stephen John Frece (Frece) whilst the appellant was driving in a southerly direction on an unsealed portion of the old Monaro Highway which was being used as a detour whilst work on a new section of the Highway was being carried out. The detour, which wound through a thick bush area, was two-way. The construction work on the new section of the Highway was being carried out by Bombala Council under contract with the Roads and Traffic Authority (the RTA).

2 The accident occurred on a winding section of the road and shortly after Frece, driving in the opposite direction to that of the appellant, had come around a large left-hand curve in the roadway. It was approximately 8pm at night and completely dark, except for the headlights of the respective vehicles which were both on low beam. At the point of the collision, the appellant's vehicle was partially on the wrong side of the road. There was a 35km per hour advisory speed sign prior to the curve. The trial judge found that Frece was travelling 40-45km per hour on the corner of the curve.

3 The appellant brought proceedings in negligence against Frece, Bombala Council and the RTA.

4 The appellant contends that her case against Bombala Council and the RTA was that she was confused by the set up including the signage at the point where she was required to turn onto the unsealed portion of the old Monaro Highway and believed it was a one-way section of the road. Part of her case was that there was a barrier on her side of the road that prevented her driving on the new section of the Highway but there was no barrier on the opposite side of the road preventing traffic travelling north from using that part of the new roadway. She thus believed that the detour was one way for traffic travelling south. His Honour accepted that the appellant believed that the roadway on the detour was one-way in her direction.

5 However, the trial judge understood the appellant’s case against Bombala Council and the RTA to be confined to a case based on negligence due to the barrier set up at the commencement of the detour, and in particular the absence of a barrier on the opposite side of the road. His Honour found that the barrier set up involved negligence on the part of Bombala Council and the RTA. However, his Honour was unconvinced that the barrier set up caused the appellant's accident, because he was not satisfied that the appellant was confused by the absence of a barrier on the opposite side of the road. He reached this conclusion because he found that she had not alleged that was the source of her confusion in two pre-trial statements. Rather, he considered that the source of the appellant’s confusion was the presence of arrows on either side of the detour directing traffic onto to the old Monaro Highway and there was no negligence in the manner in which that signage was laid out.

6 His Honour found that Frece was negligent in failing to observe the advisory speed sign but likewise found that Frece's negligence did not cause or contribute to the accident, because even had he been travelling at 35km per hour, the accident would have happened in any event.

7 His Honour's finding in relation to causation resulted in a verdict being entered for each of the respondents.

8 The appellant appealed against the verdicts entered in respect of each respondent. At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, senior counsel for the appellant informed the Court that the appeal was not being pursued against the RTA and sought leave to withdraw against that respondent. Leave was refused because if the appellant succeeded against Bombala Council, Bombala Council still had outstanding its cross-claim against the RTA for consideration. The trial judge had not determined that claim despite being urged by the parties to do so. The RTA’s liability in negligence thus remained in issue as between Bombala Council and the RTA: see James Hardie & Co Pty Limited v Seltsam (1998) 196 CLR 53; [1998] HCA 78 at [9].

9 The RTA and Frece have filed Notices of Contention. The RTA contends that it did not owe a duty of care to the appellant: see RTA, Council of the Shire of Evans & Pioneer Road Services Pty Ltd v Palmer (2003) MVR 82; [2003] NSWCA 58. Frece contends that he was not negligent in the manner in which he was driving at the curve on which the accident happened.

10 As there are no common factual matters in the case against Bombala Council and the RTA and that against Frece, the appeal against Frece will be considered separately. It is convenient first to deal with the appeal against Bombala Council and the RTA.

11 The essential issue on the appeal is whether his Honour's findings on causation were wrong. There is a prior question in relation to the appeal against Bombala Council and the RTA, namely whether the appellant had confined her case to one of confusion being caused by the absence of a barrier on the opposite side of the road or whether she based her case more generally on the traffic control measures at and leading up to the detour, including the absence of a 'two-way' sign.

12 His Honour’s finding that the appellant had failed to prove that the absence of a barrier on the opposite side of the road caused her confusion was based upon his interpretation of two statements the appellant had given prior to trial about the circumstances of the accident. The first was her statement given to the police at the scene of the accident. The second was a statement made nearly a year later to the Victorian Traffic Accident Commission (the VTAC).

13 A police officer, Constable Woods, attended at the scene of the accident and took a statement from both the appellant and Frece. The statements were written by Constable Woods and signed by the appellant. In her statement the appellant said:

14 The appellant's sister, Rosemary, who was a passenger and aged 16 at the time, also gave a statement to Constable Woods in which she said:

15 In a more detailed statement given to the VTAC almost 12 months later, the appellant set out the circumstances of the accident. After giving a general description of the scene of the accident and the speed at which she was travelling, the appellant said:

16 His Honour made the following comments about these statements. First, in relation to the statement to Constable Woods, his Honour said:

17 In her evidence in chief the appellant described what she saw as she came up to the detour. She said that she saw a 'detour' sign on the left hand side of the road, a 'road works ahead' sign and a speed reduction sign indicating that the speed had reduced to 60km per hour. She said that there was “a barricade across her lane of the road”. She was asked further questions about the “barricade or barricades”. She said the “the barricades” did not extend across into the right-hand lane (that is the lane for north bound traffic).

19 The appellant was cross-examined about the absence of any mention of a "barricade" in her statement to the police. The appellant said that the "arrows were the barricade". The appellant confirmed that she had told the police officer that she thought she was on a one-way road because "there were some arrows on the track on both sides of the road". She then gave evidence that: "there was one [arrow] on the left-hand side of my lane as I turned, and the rest that were in front of me in my lane [sic]". She denied that she had not told the police officer about the barricade although she stated that she may have worded matters differently in her statement to him.

20 The appellant also said in cross-examination that her statement to the VTAC that "[d]irectly ahead a barrier was across the road" was something that she saw on the night of the accident and was not something she remembered later. The appellant was further cross-examined about her statement to the VTAC that "there were other signs that gave me the impression that I was entering a one-way track". She confirmed that she meant "the arrows that were going in my direction" as well as "a funny drawing-shaped thing". The appellant then drew a diamond-shaped sign with what appeared to be two roads merging into one. This became Exh 2.

22 The cross-examination continued as to what Exh 2 depicted. She said that immediately prior to the detour, she was driving on a single highway, not a divided carriageway, that Exh 2 depicted two separate sections of road joining together and becoming an undivided section. She was then cross-examined to the effect that the sign could not have led her to the impression that she was going onto a one-way road. She made a number of responses to that proposition. First, she said that the sign did not depict what the condition of the road was in any event. She was then asked the following two questions:

23 The design for signage and traffic control measures at the detour was contained in a traffic control plan – TCP 13. The responsibility for the design of TCP 13 and its implementation is relevant to the question whether the RTA owed a duty of care to the appellant and to questions of contribution. For present purposes, I refer to it to explain the traffic control measures that were supposed to operate at the site. The explanation is necessary to understand the evidence, especially that of the appellant and Constable Woods, and also to put in context certain findings of the trial judge.

24 The old Monaro Highway is depicted on TCP 13 by way of broken lines, curving to the left. Prior to coming to the curve, new alignment work had been done as depicted by the words 'NEW ALIGNMENT' written within the outline of the road. The new construction is depicted as a continuation of the 'NEW ALIGNMENT', going off in a more vertical direction than the old highway, and extending up to the words 'END OF STAGE 1'.

25 On the upper side of the left hand curve there are four dots underscored by a small straight line. These depict where signs were to be placed on the roadway. The arrows depicted to the right of those symbols indicate that the type of signs to be installed at those points were those referred to in the evidence as "chevrons". Two chevrons were to be placed on the right hand side of the new construction work and two were to be placed on the left hand or south-bound section of the new work.

26 Above these first four chevrons, another three chevrons were to be placed, again following the alignment of the old Monaro Highway. As they would be positioned according to the TCP, they would be on the old unsealed part of the Monaro Highway and on the right hand side of the road facing traffic travelling from Bombala in a southerly direction. Two chevrons were also to be placed on the left hand side of the road, also governing traffic heading south.

27 One of the factual questions in the case was whether the four chevron signs on the upper left hand curve were in place on the night of the accident. Evidence of the layout of the signage and traffic control measures on the night of the accident was given by Constable Woods, the police officer who attended the scene of the accident.

28 Constable Woods, travelling from Bombala, had to take the detour south along the old Monaro Highway in order to reach the scene of the accident. He returned to Bombala via the same route. He was sufficiently concerned about the possible confusion caused by the layout of the barriers at the detour that he returned to the scene the next day with two senior officers. He said that the layout of the barriers was the same when he returned as it was on the night of the accident.

29 The confusion, in Constable Woods' opinion, was caused by there being a barrier across the side of the road for traffic going south, effectively blocking traffic from continuing along the new portion of road, but there was no barrier extending across the other side of the road. Constable Woods said that that there were also directional arrows pointing to the left which advised traffic travelling in a southerly direction to go left, preventing traffic from going straight head onto the new road works.

30 The trial judge questioned Constable Woods to clarify what he meant by his reference to "a barrier":

32 Constable Woods was asked in re-examination what it was that he felt created confusion or was misleading. He said:

33 Constable Woods also observed a barrier off to the far side of the road situated, in effect, parallel to the roadway.

34 Constable Woods prepared a COPS report on the 21 April 1999 in which he recorded that:

35 Mr Joseph, a Foreman employed by Bombala Council, commenced working on the new section of the Monaro Highway in about 1997 and at some stage became responsible for checking signage throughout the works. To the best of his recollection, that was in about 1998 or early 1999. He disagreed with a suggestion put to him in cross-examination that he could have become Foreman as late as April 1999. Mr Joseph remained responsible for checking the layout of the traffic control measures up until the time the road was opened in late 1999.

36 Mr Joseph confirmed that the signs depicted in TCP 13 were chevrons. He described these as being a sign placed upon a pole, the pole itself being embedded in cement in 4WD tyres. They were moveable with the use of a front end loader. He said that the chevrons had to be moved when the new bitumen went in (and which had been laid at the time of the accident).

37 Mr Joseph said that when he first became responsible for the signage, the signs specified in TCP 13 were positioned roughly equivalent to their placement on the plan. He said that the signs were checked each morning and afternoon. It is clear, however, that he did not check the signs on the night of the accident as he "never worked on Sunday". He denied that at any stage chevrons were placed in a direct line across the southbound lane.

38 Mr Joseph explained that the chevrons were there to divert the traffic onto the old Monaro Highway, but denied that at any time ‘barricades’ or ‘barrier boards’ were ever used at the detour to divert the traffic. Mr Joseph said that, although he did not recall a barrier board being used on this part of the highway, there was at some stage a barrier board used to block another road near this location. He said that that barrier board was used near the end of stage 1 where there was a 'road closed’ sign. Mr Joseph also stated that the barrier placed near the ‘road closed’ sign was at the end of the block of the new alignment, some distance past the turnoff onto the old Monaro Highway. He said it was placed there so that anybody who went down that portion of the road could see that it was a road closed. He identified the positioning of the barrier board as being "practically in behind the fourth chevron sign".

39 Although Mr Joseph denied that barrier boards or barricades were used to direct traffic onto the old Monaro Highway it appears that barriers were used, at least sometimes, at this spot. He said that if work vehicles needed to drive onto the new section of the highway, they could go outside the barrier. He said that there was a gap that enabled this to be done and that at night time, "plastic jersey-type barriers" were placed across the gap to stop unauthorised persons driving along the road. He said that the “two middle ones” were opened up in the day to allow the work vehicles through.

40 The trial judge elicited further evidence about the existence of these gaps. He said:

41 Mr Joseph’s evidence is somewhat confusing at this point. It seems that he was saying that work vehicles went off to the far side of the right hand side of the roadway to get onto the new work. However, that is a little strange, because he also spoke about a “gap” and about the placement of a barrier across the gap and that the “middle two” used to be opened up in the day so as to allow vehicles across. This evidence doesn’t evoke a picture of a gap or a barrier on the far right hand side of the road, but rather through chevrons on the right hand side of the road.

42 Mr Joseph also said that a 'wide road verging into a narrow road' sign was installed at some stage. It is likely on the whole of the evidence that that was the sign that the appellant said she saw but which she misunderstood.

43 On the morning after the appellant’s accident, Mr Joseph was asked to go and check the signs. He said that when he did so, everything appeared to be in order, the signs being positioned in accordance with TCP 13. Mr Joseph said, however, that he did not know whether he was at work on the morning of Monday 19 April 1999, the day after the accident, nor could he be precisely clear that he had responsibility for the signage as at that time.

44 Two traffic engineers, Mr Fishburn and Mr Jamieson, gave evidence in relation to TCP 13 and the adequacy generally of the traffic control measures at the site.

45 In his report dated 22 December 2004, Mr Fishburn stated that TCP 13 was adequate for the circumstances. He also considered that it would be most unusual to have provided an advisory ‘two-way traffic’ sign, noting that the Australian Standard AS 1742.3-1996 (AS 1742.3), made no mention of the use of two-way traffic signs on gravelled roads, or indeed on any roads.

46 TCP 13 cited AS 1742.3 as the appropriate standards reference for the design of the traffic control measures at the detour. Section 2 of AS 1742.3 sets out the requirements for the development, installation and operation of a Traffic Guidance Scheme and applies, relevantly, to the planning, design, installation and operational stages. Clause 2.2 provides by way of general precept that careful consideration must be given to the signage of a construction site:

47 "Basic principles" are then specified. Relevantly for this case, those principles provided:

48 AS 1742.3 states that two-way advisory signs "should be erected on both sides of the road at the beginning of each section over which two-way conditions temporarily apply" (emphasis added). The text to the Standard then states that two-way advisory signs should be used in the following situations:

49 The detour did not fall into either of those circumstances. That lead Mr Fishburn to conclude that “the usage of such signs is not good practice at this site (or at any sites on unsealed roads)”.

50 Mr Fishburn agreed that the Australian Standard was not meant to be an exclusive prescriptor of signposts and that its purpose was to provide a minimum standard. Mr Fishburn also agreed if there was no barrier on the opposite side of the sealed section of the roadway, a driver could get confused, in the sense that such a driver might believe that the diversion to the left was for traffic travelling southwards and that vehicles travelling north would be coming along the new section of the roadway. He accepted that in circumstances where a road user might be confused, the road authority might erect appropriate signage but said that any signage needed to be effective and that there was a problem with having too many signs. He said that they were only good for the purposes of drawing the attention of motorists "to things that are quite out of the ordinary".

51 In this regard, it should be noted cl 2.4 of AS 1742.3 has some relevance. It provides:

52 Mr Fishburn concluded that the usage of a two-way sign was not good practice at that site or at any sites on unsealed roads. He was not directly cross-examined on this conclusion. Nor was he specifically asked in cross-examination whether, given that there was a barrier across one side of the road and not across the other, it would have been appropriate to install a two-way sign. However, he conceded that there could be a potentiality for confusion in that circumstance. Earlier, Mr Fishburn had been cross-examined on the need for effective signposting where the road conditions were confusing. In that cross-examination Mr Fishburn agreed that it was “very desirable” to eliminate potential confusion in the mind of a motorist upon approaching a section of a roadway, and that one means of alerting motorists to changing conditions was by signposting. He agreed with counsel cross-examining that “it is a good thing for [a] road authority to warn motorists of [a potentially confusing] impending situation”, with the qualification that excessive use of signposts compromised or even negated their effectiveness.

53 In my opinion, Mr Fishburn's conclusion that the usage of signs was not good practice at that site, or at any sites on unsealed roads, was significantly undermined by this cross-examination, and although there was no direct cross-examination on it, it ought not be given the same weight as is usually accorded unchallenged evidence.

54 In his report dated 16 June 2003, Mr Jamieson concluded that in the usual course of events, as major road works get closer to completion and if the new alignment closely matches the alignment of the existing road, it would be "natural" for vehicles to use the new alignment. He pointed out that it was for this reason that AS 1742.3 required rigorous signposting and placement of barricades in order to give an unambiguous message to approaching motorists as to the route they needed to take. He considered that if, in this case, some or all of the barricades were not in place particularly at the northern "tie point" of the construction (that is at the point of the detour), then the impression would be that the side track, which was in fact the old Monaro Highway, was one-way. He considered that, given the potential for ambiguity, the road works authority should have taken steps to ensure that all barricades were in place and also should have reinforced the traffic controls on the old alignment by the erection of two-way traffic signs.

55 In his oral evidence, Mr Jamieson agreed that the design of the traffic control measures in TCP 13 was appropriate and satisfactory at the time when it was approved. He reiterated his view, however, that as the construction proceeded, such that it increasingly took on the appearance of being an extension of the existing highway, close attention should have been given to ensuring that motorists were provided with unambiguous guidance in and around the road works as required by AS 1742.3. Mr Jamieson was of the opinion that a driver travelling on a two-lane bitumen road, who encountered a narrow dirt track, would be likely to assume that the dirt track was a diversion or deviation from the main road, and not part of an official roadway as it was in this case. If there was a barrier across the lane in which the driver was travelling, but not across the opposing lane, the ambiguity would be reinforced.

56 Mr Jamieson also expressed the opinion that, between 1996, when TCP 13 was first approved, and the time of the accident, he would have expected that the scene of the intersection and the road conditions would have "fundamentally changed". He said that he would have expected that updated TCPs would have been prepared to take account of those fundamental changes. However, no subsequent TCP was prepared in respect of the detour.

57 Mr Jamieson agreed that the indications in AS 1742.3 for a 'two-way' sign did not expressly apply to the detour. He explained, however, that Australian Standards provided minimum design and construction requirements and that each site has to be assessed on its own merits.

58 In my opinion the trial judge, in concluding that the negligence of the RTA and Bombala Council was not the cause of the appellant’s accident, failed to appreciate the extent of the claim made by the appellant, and also failed to appreciate certain aspects of the evidence in the case.

59 The appellant, in her Statement of Claim, had alleged negligence against the RTA and Bombala Council on a number of bases including: failure to properly warn motorists of the road works: para 8(a); failure to warn or advise motorists of the traffic conditions during the course of the road works: para 8(b); failure to install two-way signs: para 8(c); failure to barricade the road works: para 8(e); and failure to adequately prepare a traffic plan relevant to the road works: para 8(i). These particulars embraced not only a failure to properly or adequately barricade the road works, but also a failure to erect adequate signage to warn of the road conditions, including that the old section of the Highway used as the detour was two-way.

60 Senior counsel for the appellant informed the Court that the appellant’s case at trial was not confined to confusion caused by the absence of barriers on the new section of the road for traffic travelling north. Rather, it was the appellant's case that she was confused by the traffic control layout and signage at the detour on the road, including the placement of a barrier across the south bound section of the new work only and by the fact that there was no two-way sign. This was not contradicted by senior counsel for either Bombala Council or the RTA.

61 That this was so is confirmed by the appellant’s evidence at trial. The appellant’s evidence was that she was confused by the combination of traffic control measures at the detour. The appellant explained that her reference to a barrier or barricade was a reference to arrows to which she had referred in her statement to Constable Woods. The reference to arrows was itself a reference to chevrons on the roadway at the point of the detour which directed her to the left. Thus, she said that the barricades were “like arrows” which counsel interpreted as chevrons.

62 Questioning followed thereafter with the words “barricades” and “chevrons” being used interchangeably, without objection and without any subsequent challenge to that usage in cross-examination. She also said in her cross-examination that the “arrows were the barricade” and she specifically described the barriers as being signs on posts. And, in any event, there was no suggestion that there were any other directional arrows that might have answered that description.

63 The appellant also told Constable Woods that she saw arrows on both sides of the road directing her to the left so that she "naturally [thought] it was a one-way thing with another bit for other traffic coming along”. This statement only makes sense if there was no barrier on the other side of the road. This understanding is reinforced by Constables Woods' comment in the COPS report that the appellant "observed another road facing her which she believed was for oncoming traffic ...”.

64 In her statement to the VTAC, the appellant referred both to a barrier and to signs. In particular, she said that she never saw any signs that showed it was a two-way section of the road.

65 Constable Woods’ evidence, that there “was an obstruction, a barrier ... with directory arrows pointing the traffic to the left onto the dirt road” corresponds with the appellant’s evidence that the “arrows were the barricade”.

66 If there was a barrier, or chevrons, placed on the opposite side of the road, it is unlikely the appellant would have had a belief that the detour was one-way. Certainly, there would have been no reasonable basis for that belief. However, the evidence does not permit that conclusion. It is apparent both from the statement contained in the police report and from the COPS report there was something about the other side of the road that made her believe that it was open for traffic. On the evidence that could only have been the absence of a barrier on that side of the roadway. She said in cross-examination that she was sure that there was no obstruction in the path of northbound drivers. Otherwise, the cross-examination focussed upon the language used in her earlier statements as opposed to that used in evidence and in particular upon the absence of any use of the words “barrier” or “barricades”. However, as the appellant explained, “the arrows" were the “barricades”.

67 I have already referred to his Honour’s conclusion that the cause of the appellant’s confusion was the existence of arrows on either side of the road. His Honour considered that the arrows to which the appellant was referring were the chevrons depicted in TCP 13. His Honour said that:

68 This observation, upon which his Honour subsequently based a finding against the appellant, appears to derive from his Honour’s own experience. It was not part of the evidence and was not in accordance with the evidence. A judge, as part of the fact finding process, is entitled and often required to make a value judgment in respect of matters of fact adduced in evidence. Such evaluation will be based on many factors, including the judge's life experiences as an individual in society and the judge's training and experience as a lawyer or judge. The evaluation, however, must be in respect of proved facts. A trial judge is not entitled to use personal experience to make findings of fact or to draw inferences unless that personal experience satisfies the prescription for the use of matters of common knowledge.

69 The use of common knowledge is governed by s 144 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). That section provides:

(a) common knowledge in the locality in which the proceeding is being held or generally, or

(b) capable of verification by reference to a document the authority of which cannot reasonably be questioned."

70 Not only was there no evidence upon which his Honour could make such comment or finding, his Honour’s observation was contrary to the evidence. The appellant, Constable Woods and Mr Joseph each gave evidence that, in addition to indicating the direction of the detour, the chevrons were used as a barrier or barricade to prevent traffic accessing the new section of the Highway. This was also clearly shown in TCP 13. His Honour’s observation failed to appreciate this. Indeed, his Honour’s comment reveals that he did not understand that the barrier or barricades of which the appellant gave evidence were the first four chevrons depicted in TCP 13 positioned on the upper left hand curve of the roadway.

71 Whilst his Honour appreciated that the appellant’s evidence was that there were chevrons on both sides of the old Monaro Highway, and that she was confused by them, he based his finding that a reasonably prudent driver would not have been confused upon his own impermissible understanding of what the signs depicted. Accordingly, his conclusion that “these signs were [not] capable of confusing a prudent driver to the extent of believing that he or she was on a one-way road” is not sustainable. His Honour also failed to appreciate that the appellant’s confusion was caused by a combination of factors relating to the traffic control measures and the appearance of the roadway.

72 His Honour next said that there was no evidence that enabled him to conclude the signs were in the position shown in TCP 13 at the time of the accident. Although this passage in his Honour’s judgment is not particularly clear it appears to be another reason why his Honour considered that the appellant should not have been confused. But whatever his Honour intended to convey, there are problems with the finding.

73 In the first place, the finding replicates his misunderstanding as to what TCP 13 depicted. His Honour did not understand that the first four chevrons on TCP 13 were not only directional arrows, but were also intended to be placed on the road so as to form barriers to prevent the passage of traffic along the northbound section of the road.

74 Secondly, even if his Honour’s understanding that all of the chevrons merely constituted directional arrows was correct, there was no suggestion that the directional arrows across the southbound lane were not in position. The issue related to the first four chevrons. Accordingly, nothing can really be made of his Honour’s finding and with respect it should left to one side.

75 This leads immediately to the next finding of his Honour, namely that he was not satisfied about the absence of a barrier on the opposite side of the road. He said:

76 For reasons I have already given, his Honour’s finding in relation to the appellant’s evidence failed to appreciate what the appellant in fact meant in her statements. As was the case with the cross-examination, and perhaps beguiled by it, his Honour’s finding focuses on the absence of any use of the words “barricade” or “barrier” and failed to appreciate or remember that the appellant had given evidence that by “arrows” she meant “barricades” or “barrier” and her evidence was consistent with the independent evidence of Constable Woods.

77 Further, Constable Woods specifically gave evidence that the barricades had not changed from the preceding night to when he went back the following day. In fact, in response to a question from his Honour, Constable Woods stated that he had observed there had been a barrier on the side of the road upon which the appellant was travelling and another barrier off to the right on his way to the accident and that he observed that to be the position again when he was travelling back after the accident.

78 There was the contrary evidence of Mr Joseph. However, his Honour did not find Mr Joseph’s evidence helpful because he was unable to remember satisfactorily whether the position the day after the accident was as Constable Woods had said. His Honour’s assessment of Mr Joseph’s evidence is well-founded. Mr Joseph had no clear recollection of events at the time. Further, it is not clear whether he had seen TCP 13 other than in connection with giving evidence in the trial.

79 That only left the evidence of Constable Woods and the appellant. There was no suggestion that Constable Woods' evidence suffered from the same lack of reliability as did Mr Joseph's. In circumstances where Constable Woods had observed the scene, taken a statement from the appellant that she was confused, and was sufficiently concerned about the traffic control measures to revisit the scene of the accident the next day, recommend the installation of a 'two way sign' and prepare a COPS report that was consistent with the appellant not having seen any barriers on the opposite side of the road, the evidence was effectively overwhelming that there was no barrier on the opposite side of the road on the night of the accident.

80 His Honour’s conclusion to the contrary cannot, in my opinion, be sustained.

81 His Honour also made a finding in relation to Exh 2, stating that that sign should have signified to the appellant a situation where two roads were merging into one. That was a reasonable interpretation of Exh 2. However, it was apparent from the whole of the evidence that Exh 2 did not depict the sign that was in place. TCP 13 depicted a 'road narrowing' sign. Mr Joseph also gave evidence that there was a 'road narrowing' sign before the turn-off. And the appellant’s evidence was that Exh 2 as she had drawn it did not correctly depict the road conditions. That, on all the evidence, was clear.

82 However, his Honour did not analyse the whole of the evidence relating to Exh 2. If his Honour considered that Exh 2 was relevant, as he apparently did, he was obliged to consider all of the evidence that related to it. The most obvious, and indeed only probable conclusion was the appellant was mistaken as to what the sign depicted. This might have added weight to his assessment that there were important aspects of the appellant’s evidence that were unreliable. But there was no point in making a finding that the appellant could not have been confused by Exh 2 if, on all of the evidence, Exh 2 did not depict what was in place.

83 Even if it was open to his Honour to conclude that the appellant’s recollection of the sign was correct, as he appears to have done, then the evidence established that the sign did not depict the road conditions. In that case, that would have been a relevant consideration in determining whether the signage at the detour was confusing. His Honour did not appear to have any regard to that evidence.

84 His Honour also found that the only criticisms of Bombala Council and the RTA made by the experts as to the management of the site relied upon the absence of barriers facing traffic travelling in the opposite direction to the appellant. He considered that the expert evidence “[did] not incriminate in any way the arrows on both sides of the road which the [appellant] said she observed at the detour in her statement given to Constable Woods” and which his Honour found represented the “true source of her confusion”.

85 The difficulty with his Honour’s conclusion in relation to the expert evidence is that it was based upon the premise that the appellant had confined her case to confusion caused by the absence of a barrier. As I have already explained, I consider that that was not the case. His Honour’s conclusion is also based upon his own misapprehension in relation to the signage to which I have already referred.

86 The appellant’s main complaint in relation to this part of his Honour’s reasoning is that his Honour failed to give any consideration to that part of her case that asserted that there was negligence in failing to erect a two-way sign. For the reasons that I give below, that was a relevant part of the case and required consideration by his Honour. The failure to consider it also involved error.

87 In my opinion, the trial judge erred in his understanding of the extent of the claim made by the appellant and in his interpretation of the two statements upon which he based his ultimate conclusion that the RTA and Bombala Council were not liable. His Honour expressed the opinion that if he were to accept the appellant’s version that she was confused by the barrier set up, she would have been entitled to a verdict. His Honour was correct in this assessment. The barrier set up at the scene of the detour involved negligence such that, of itself, it was sufficient for the appellant to succeed against either the RTA or the Bombala Council or both. That negligence was most likely a casual act of negligence in that chevrons were removed and not put back in place. Otherwise, there would have been two chevrons on the opposite side of the road in accordance with TCP 13. Another possibility, arising from the evidence of Mr Joseph, was that TCP 13 was not complied with and for a period a movable barrier was used on that part of the roadway.

88 In this regard, Mr Joseph’s evidence as to the existence of barriers other than the chevrons, being used at or near the turn-off, helps to explain Constable Woods’ evidence that he saw a barrier board off to the right of the road and parallel to it. It is known from Mr Joseph’s evidence that there were two barrier boards, other than the chevrons, in the vicinity of the detour. Mr Joseph's evidence also lends support to there being a casual act of negligence by the Council at some stage during the construction. If the chevrons were moved from their position, as is apparent from his evidence that they were, then, if the evidence of the appellant and Constable Woods is correct, the ones on the opposite side of the road had not been repositioned or repositioned correctly at least on the night of the accident, and it would appear, the jersey-type barriers were not in place so as to provide a barrier across the opposite side of the road or to otherwise fill in a gap on the opposite side of the road. Whatever barrier was on the other side of the road, it was positioned so as to be parallel to the alignment of the roadway, and thus was not blocking it.

89 However, in order for the appellant to establish liability, it is not necessary for her to establish precisely how the negligent set up on the night of the accident came about, except to the extent that she needs to attribute the responsibility for that set up to one or both of the RTA or Bombala Council. In that respect there has been no dispute. Senior counsel for Bombala Council acknowledged, as I understand his submission, that if the Court found that the absence of a barrier on the opposite side of the road caused the appellant’s confusion, then it would be liable as it was its responsibility to put the chevrons in place and maintain them in place. That much was established on the evidence.

90 I am also of the opinion that there was negligence in the design of the general traffic control measures including chevrons being placed on both sides of the road in circumstances where there was no 'two-way' sign at the detour. This is considered further below as it is related to the question whether the RTA owed a duty of care to the appellant.

91 Before determining whether the appellant has established negligence against either the RTA or Bombala Council, there is another issue to which reference should be made. The RTA contended that his Honour’s finding on causation was credit based and was thus protected from appellate review by the Abalos principle: see Abalos v Australian Postal Commission [1990] HCA 47; (1990) 171 CLR 167; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22.

92 His Honour’s credit finding was based essentially upon the appellant’s unreliability as opposed to any untruthfulness. As his Honour said, he had not concluded that the appellant was devoid of credit and not to be believed on other subjects. Nonetheless, a finding based upon unreliability or inconsistencies in evidence is as much governed by the Abalos principle as is a credit finding based on untruthfulness.

93 In this case, however, I am of the opinion that his Honour’s finding on causation is not so protected. As I have explained, his Honour’s failure to appreciate both the extent of the appellant’s case and certain aspects of the evidence means that his credit finding was itself misplaced.

94 Bombala Council contends that the appellant was contributorally negligent, in that she ought to have seen the headlights of Frece’s vehicle coming towards her and taken steps to avoid a collision. Bombala Council further contends that the appellant should have kept to the left-hand side of the road in any event. Both arguments can be disposed of shortly. It is convenient first to deal with the second of these arguments. The appellant believed she was on a one-way road. That belief was induced by the negligence of the Council. As the appellant believed she was on a one-way road, there was no need to move to the side.

95 So far as the failure to sight Frece’s headlights is concerned, there was no evidence upon which the Court could find that the appellant should have observed them. The headlights of both vehicles were on low beam and the area was heavily wooded. The appellant said the road was winding so that no inference could be down that the headlights of a vehicle coming from the opposite direction ought to have been visible. Frece did not assert that he saw the appellant’s headlights.

97 The question of whether the RTA owed a duty of care to the appellant is very much involved with the relationship between it and Bombala Council.

98 The RTA contends that whatever the barrier set up at the detour on the night of the accident, and regardless of whether that set up was negligent, the signage and barrier placement was not a matter in the care and control of the RTA. Rather, Bombala Council was the relevant roads authority for the construction of the new section of the Highway. The RTA contends that its involvement with the road works and in particular with the detour arrangements was limited to the approval it gave to the works in 1996.

99 There is in fact no dispute that Bombala Council was the roads authority for the Highway: Roads Act 1993 (NSW) (the Roads Act) s 7(4). The fee simple of the Highway was also vested in it pursuant to s 145(3) of that Act. However, pursuant to s 61, it was exclusively the function of the RTA to make decisions as to what road work was to be carried out on the Highway: s 61(1)(a). It would appear that the decision to undertake the new road works was made under this section.

100 The new works were being constructed by Bombala Council pursuant to an $8m funding advanced by the RTA under s 207 of the Roads Act. That section provides:

(1) The RTA and a roads authority may enter into, and may perform their obligations under, an agreement under which the RTA provides financial or other assistance to the roads authority to enable it:

(a) to carry out specified road work or specified traffic control work on a specified classified road, or

101 The contract for Bombala Council as the roads authority to carry out the work was entered into with the RTA in 1995. The contract comprised relevantly an acceptance of Bombala Council’s revised cost estimate, the RTA’s Schedule of Works and Specifications for the project and its 'Arrangements with Councils for Road Management'. This latter document apparently is referred to generically within the RTA and local Councils as the ‘Yellow Book’.

102 Clause G1.10(c) of the Specifications provided that the contractor was responsible for constructing the project in accordance with the specification and drawings. The key players for the works were also specified in cl G1.10. The RTA and Bombala Council were the principal and contractor respectively. The Superintendent was an RTA employee and the Supervisor, Project Engineer and Foreman were Bombala Council employees. The Foreman was responsible for the day-to-day co-ordination and site control of direct labour, plant, sub-contractors and suppliers: 'Quality Plan' cl 2.2.1.

103 Clause G2.4 provided that control of traffic shall be in accordance with Part G10. Clause G10.1 provided relevantly:

104 Clause G10.1.3 provided that four weeks prior to undertaking any work that would involve any obstruction to traffic, Bombala Council was to submit for the Superintendent's approval a Traffic Control Plan. The Plan was required to include a "signpost layout" showing location, size and legend of all temporary signs.

105 Clause G10.2.7 provided that temporary roadways and detours shall not be opened to traffic until inspected and approved by the Superintendent.

106 Clause G10.4.3 made provision for the maintenance of traffic control devices and required that they be maintained in accordance with AS 1742.3 "so that they are in good order and in the correct positions day and night" (emphasis added). Clause G10.4.4 further provided that where Bombala Council fails to provide and maintain adequate traffic control devices, the Superintendent may arrange to have such items provided and maintained.

107 Part Q-DC made provision for the submission of ‘Quality System’ documents by Bombala Council. These documents were required to include a 'Quality Plan' containing "quality procedures for the quality assurance of all project activities". Bombala Council's Project Engineer was responsible for (among other tasks), "surveillance of the quality system to ensure the system is functioning ...".

108 Bombala Council submitted its 'Quality Plan' on 27 February 1995. The 'Quality Plan' specified that Control of Traffic was included in the scope of works. The preparation of a Traffic Control Plan was the responsibility of the Project Engineer, subject to approval by the RTA.

109 The responsibility, authority and resources for the project were specified in cl 2.2.1 of the 'Quality Plan'. Under cl 2.2.3, the Supervisor of Works, in conjunction with the Project Engineer, was required to review the quality system at regular intervals to ensure its continuing suitability and effectiveness.

110 The Project Engineer was also required to conduct internal quality audits on the effectiveness of the quality system and to submit the audit report to the Supervisor of Works: 'Quality Plan' cl 5.13. Bombala Council was responsible for training all employees undertaking activities affecting quality: 'Quality Plan' cl 5.14.

111 Clause 5.8 required the Foreman or the Project Engineer to observe the Traffic Control Plan "from the perspective of a driver, who it is assumed is not familiar with the site".

113 Clause A1 dealt with traffic management. It set out six activities and nominated the persons responsible for undertaking the activity as well as the acceptance criteria for each activity. The specified activities and the relevant responsibilities were:

	Activity	Responsible Person	Acceptance Criteria
1	Preparing the Traffic Control Plan (TCP)	Project Engineer and RTA	Compliance with Specification "Hold Point"
2	Implement Scheme	Supervisor of Works, Project Engineer, Foreman	Compliance with approved TCP "Hold Point"
3	Monitor Scheme	Project Engineer, Foreman	Inspection by Foreman conforms to Traffic Control Manual
4	Change Scheme	Project Engineer, Foreman	Inspection by Foreman
5	Reinstate Damage	Foreman	Inspection by Foreman
6	Remove Scheme	Foreman	Inspection by Foreman

114 The Foreman was required to monitor the TCP on a daily basis to ensure that signposting and traffic control devices were in place: Procedures Manual Part P cl 5.7.

115 The 'Quality Plan' also included an Inspection Plan and Hold Point Schedule, which included the TCP and Traffic Management arrangements. The requirements for each of these was as follows:

	Activity	Inspection	Frequency	Request by	Inspect. by	Acceptance Criteria
1	TCP	Submit TCP	Prior to commencement	Project Engineer	RTA	Complies with Spec.
6	Traffic Management	Control Plan	Daily		Foreman	Conforms to TCP

116 The only requirement for inspection by the RTA under the Quality Plan, other than submission of the TCP, was at the point of the opening of the completed work, with the inspection to be undertaken by the RTA ten days prior to the opening.

117 The traffic control measures for the detour were designed as part of TCP 13. On 24 June 1996, Bombala Council's Project Engineer, who had responsibility for the initial preparation of the TCP forwarded a fax to the RTA enclosing, inter alia, TCP 13, commenting that it had been amended to include the RTA's recommendations. The Project Engineer advised that the "special sign 'Reduce Speed/Road Narrows' is currently being designed ...". The Project Engineer sought the release of TCP 13 in accordance with cl G10.1.3 of the RTA specifications. The RTA responded on the same date by advising that TCP 13 was released.

118 The RTA contended that once it had approved the plan it had no ongoing responsibility for the traffic control measures at the site unless any change was proposed by Bombala Council. Its point, in short, was that if TCP 13 was properly implemented, there would have been a barrier across the oncoming or north-bound section of the new work. It followed on its submission that it did not owe a duty of care to the appellant.

119 The RTA submitted that, in circumstances where its role did not extend beyond providing the funding for the works and relevantly approving the design drawing for the TCP, it did not owe a duty of care to the appellant. It submitted that, in this regard, it was in no different position to that which applied in Palmer (see at [9] above).

120 In Palmer, Spigelman CJ considered whether, in similar circumstances, the RTA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff who suffered catastrophic injuries when she lost control of her car and went over the edge of the road and down an embankment. The accident occurred at a point where road works were being undertaken by contractors pursuant to an agreement made with the local Shire Council. The project was one that was funded by the RTA. As in this case, the Council was, under s 7 of the Roads Act, the road authority, although in Palmer the RTA had overall responsibility for the road: see Palmer at [4].

121 Spigelman CJ held at [153]-[154] that the RTA did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff in that case. His Honour observed that the RTA had funded the particular project and also undertook a range of interventions to ensure the proper execution of the project. However, it was not responsible for execution of the works. That task was solely reposed in the Shire Council and its sub-contractors. Pursuant to those arrangements, it was a Council officer who attended the site each day whilst the road works were being undertaken. There was no requirement or expectation that an officer of the RTA would undertake inspections. The Chief Justice thus concluded:

122 Bombala Council accepted that the negligence of the RTA, if any, was in its approval of TCP 13. Subject therefore to the factual question of whether TCP 13 provided for adequate traffic control measures at the detour and the question of inspections by the RTA, his Honour's reasoning in Palmer applies directly to this case.

123 The question of inspection can be dealt with shortly. Mr Joseph gave evidence that the RTA did inspect the construction site. He said that it did so once a month or less. However, there was no evidence that the RTA inspected the signage or traffic control measures at the point of detour or at any relevantly proximate time to the accident or at all. In those circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to infer negligence due to a failure to inspect. In any event, no case was run at trial of a systemic failure, such as a failure to inspect in breach of a contractual requirement to do so or contrary to some established practice.

124 Senior counsel for Bombala Council postulated three possibilities as to why the TCP was not adequate. First, because of the failure to provide for a two-way sign; second, because the chevrons were not adequately positioned on the plan; and third, because no provision was made for a solid barrier to block off the road more fully.

125 The second and third of these propositions can be disposed of immediately. Both experts expressed the opinion that TCP 13 was adequate at the time it was approved. The Court does not have to accept that evidence. However, there was no dispute between the experts on the point so that it would be unusual for the Court not to accept the uncontested expert evidence. Indeed, there would have to be good reason for it not to do so in that circumstance. There was no other evidence that TCP 13 was, when first implemented, inadequate for either of these reasons.

126 It will be remembered that Constable Woods was of the opinion that there should have been a two-way sign at the detour and recommended that that be attended to. His concern was that the directional arrows created the impression that traffic travelling south was going onto a bypass. However, his concern related to the fact that the chevrons gave the impression that the road to the left was a one-way bypass in circumstances where there appeared to be a free right of passage on the northbound lane. Mr Jamieson also supported the placement of a two-sign in that circumstance.

127 Accordingly, if there was negligence in failing to have a two-way sign, it was negligence that arose during the course of the construction work and was not related to the original design of TCP 13 that was approved by the RTA. As I have already pointed out, the Australian Standards did not indicate that a two-way sign was required and both experts agreed that the two matters specified in AS 1742.3 did not apply to the circumstances that operated at the detour. Although the Australian Standard in cl 2.2 "Basic principles" required that signs and devices should be regularly checked for effectiveness, that was the responsibility of Bombala Council.

128 In my opinion, the evidence did not establish that there was any inadequacy in the design of TCP 13 at the time of its approval. Nor was the RTA responsible for checking compliance with it, or initiating changes as the work progressed. It follows that the RTA did not owe any duty of care to the appellant.

129 I consider, however, that Bombala Council was negligent in failing to assess the traffic control measures at the detour and provide for a two-way sign. The chevrons were moveable and must have been moved. The work being carried out at and near the detour created a dynamic situation. As Mr Jamieson said, the conditions at the detour would have changed fundamentally from the time that TCP 13 was approved. Both he and Constable Woods considered that a two-way sign was necessary to avoid confusion.

130 Having regard to my conclusion that the RTA did not owe a duty of care, it becomes unnecessary to deal with the question of indemnity. However, should I be wrong and as a matter of completeness, it is appropriate that I should do so.

131 The RTA submitted that the relevant indemnity clause was that contained in Section G, cl F.01 of the Yellow Book. That clause provided:

132 Senior counsel for Bombala Council submitted that the relevant indemnity clause was in fact to be found in the State Road Maintenance Agreement between the RTA and Bombala Council for the years 1998-1999. Under that agreement, the relevant release and indemnity provisions did not extend to any claim or proceeding based upon the negligence of the RTA: see cls 3.19, 3.20 and 3.21 of the State Road Maintenance Agreement 1998-1999.

133 In making this submission, senior counsel for Bombala Council had assumed that the State Road Maintenance Agreement for 1998-1999 formed part of the relevant contractual arrangements between the parties. In my opinion, that was not so. The State Road Maintenance Agreement was in respect of the whole of the Highway within Bombala Council's boundaries and was for ongoing maintenance work. It was entered into approximately three years after the contract that governed the construction of the new work.

134 The work that was being undertaken here was the construction of a new section of the Highway, which, when finished and opened, would result in the old Monaro Highway being bypassed. The new section of the roadway was not opened until November 1999. Accordingly, the new road works being undertaken did not fall within the approved work programme for ongoing maintenance of the Highway under the State Road Maintenance Agreement.

135 Bombala Council accepted, as I understand it, that if the relevant indemnity clause was that contained in the Yellow Book, then that indemnity clause would require it to indemnify the RTA. This submission is clearly correct. The same indemnity clause was held to cover a like situation in Palmer, in the decision of Wood CJ at CL at first instance: see Palmer v RTA [2001] NSWSC 846 at [416].

136 The appellant's case against Frece, the driver of the vehicle with which she collided, was that he was negligent in driving at a speed that was too fast in the circumstances.

137 In his evidence at trial, Frece said that he was driving at 30-35km per hour at the time of the accident. The trial judge did not accept this evidence. He found that the probability was that he was driving 40-45km per hour on the curve, which was the speed that he had informed Constable Woods that he was driving at when he gave his statement at the scene of the accident.

138 His Honour further found that his failure to keep to the advisory speed sign of 35km per hour constituted negligence. His Honour found, however, that that negligence did not causally contribute to the accident. He found that the accident was bound to occur anyway, even if Frece was travelling at the advisory speed. In this regard, his Honour noted the concessions that had been made by both Mr Jamieson and Mr Fishburn that the accident would, in all probability, have occurred had Frece been travelling 35km per hour. His Honour was not prepared to find that, had Frece been travelling at 35km per hour, the severity of the accident and the extent of injuries suffered by the appellant would have been less.

139 The appellant complains that his Honour failed to deal with that part of the her case in which she alleged that had Frece been travelling more slowly, the appellant might have been able to avoid the collision.

140 The crash occurred on a tight right-hand curve as the appellant was driving along it. The curve was signposted at 35km per hour for vehicles travelling in both directions. The curve had an approximate radius of 50m which restricted the sight distance at the centre line to about 37m.

141 The impact to the appellant's vehicle was on her right-hand front corner and down the right hand side of the car. The front off-side wheel was bent transversely. The off-side front mudguard was severely damaged and there was also some damage on the leading edge of the off-side front door. There was damage to the bonnet, but this was caused by the damage to the off-side front of the vehicle.

142 In her statement to the police the appellant said that she had tried to get out of the way of the truck, but that it came around fairly quickly "and fairly wide", making it hard for her to get out of the way. In her cross-examination she agreed that if she had moved even a metre to her left, the collision would not have occurred. She said that she had tried to get out of the way, but did not have sufficient time, as she only saw Frece's truck moments before the impact.

143 Mr Jamieson gave evidence that a speed of 40-45km per hour around that curve "would be hazardously high". Mr Fishburn was of the same opinion. He said that the speed Frece adopted:

144 Mr Fishburn also stated that "the available sight distance around this curve is insufficient for vehicles on a collision course to see each other and to stop". Mr Fishburn also agreed that depending upon the speed of the truck and the appellant's own speed, there was not much time to stop.

145 Mr Fishburn, in his report, stated that if both vehicles were travelling at 30km per hour they may have been able to stop before colliding. If both were travelling at 35km per hour, he considered there would have been a minor impact. He also stated that the seriousness of a collision increases as speed increases, so that at a closing speed of 80km per hour (the appellant at 35km per hour and Frece at 45km per hour), a more serious impact was likely.

146 During cross-examination by counsel for Frece, Mr Fishburn reinforced his opinion that speed was an important consideration in determining the extent of damage. He was asked:

147 In his report, Mr Jamieson considered that a reasonable reaction time at the curve was about 1.5 seconds. On an assumption that the appellant's vehicle was approaching the curve at 30km per hour, it would be travelling at about 8.3m per second. On the assumption that Frece was approaching at 35km per hour, he was travelling at 9.7m per second. On those assumptions, the "closing speed" of the two vehicles was about 18m per second. Mr Jamieson stated that, given that the maximum sight distance through the curve was about 37m, the maximum time between first sighting and collision was about 2.1 seconds. On those assumptions, if one or both vehicles was straddling the centre line, then there was insufficient time or distance to successfully avoid the oncoming vehicle.

148 Mr Jamieson also gave evidence that there was an exponential relationship between velocity and potential for injury. He said that if there was a unit of 5 increase in speed, there would be a unit of 25 increase in injury potential. However, Mr Jamieson did not give any evidence relating to the relative position of the cars.

149 Further, neither expert gave evidence that the appellant’s injuries were more serious because of the speed at which Frece was travelling.

150 It appears from the cross-examination that the appellant did seek to make out a case that the collision, and therefore her injuries, were more serious because of the speed at which Frece was travelling. His Honour failed to deal with that case. In such circumstances, the usual course is that the matter is remitted for retrial, at least on the issue not dealt with, unless the evidence is such or of such a nature that the appellate court is able to deal with it. That can occur where the evidence is uncontested or is documentary.

151 However, this Court will only order a new trial if there has been some substantial wrong or miscarriage: Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 51 r 23. In this case there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage. The evidence was that the speed at which Frece was travelling caused a more serious crash than would have been the case had he been travelling at the advisory speed. However, there was no evidence that the appellant’s injuries were thereby worse. In those circumstances, even though the trial judge erred in failing to deal with this part of the case as advanced by the appellant, it is not an error calling for appellate intervention.

153 Strictly, that makes it unnecessary to deal with Frece’s Notice of Contention. However, if it became necessary to deal with it, I would not uphold it. The evidence clearly was that taking the curve at 45km was dangerous. A person driving dangerously is not exercising reasonable care.

154 The result of my conclusion is that the appellant has been partially successful and is entitled to a verdict against Bombala Council. Unfortunately, his Honour did not assess damages. This Court has consistently urged upon trial judges the need to determine damages in the event that the Court of Appeal does not uphold the primary decision on liability. This was a case where that ought to have been done. Because damages have not been assessed the matter will have to be remitted for a further hearing in relation to damages.

155 There may be costs questions that arise in relation to the dismissal of the appeal as against the RTA. I would expect that the appellant would seek a Bullock Order against Bombala Council in respect of the costs that it will be ordered to pay to the RTA. There will also be costs issues arising from the fact that the appellant sought to discontinue its appeal against the RTA but was prevented from doing so because of the question of contribution that Bombala Council sought to maintain against the RTA. I would thus propose making the principal orders disposing of the appeal as set out below and give directions for the filing of written submissions in relation to the costs of the RTA.

Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Appeal

Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors [2006] NSWCA 229 (17 August 2006)