|
Signs of change
|
Luke Bartram, Lawyer |
Gregory Montfroy was driving along a highway in country Victoria on 16 August 2000. He passed a sign advising ‘Slippery when frosty’. Although it was a winter’s night, Greg did not notice any frosty road conditions.
There was a bridge 320 metres beyond the sign. A hump had developed where the road met the edge of the bridge. Further, unknown to Greg, there was black ice on the bridge. When the rear wheels of Greg’s car passed over the hump, this pushed the vehicle off its line of travel and Greg then lost control on the icy bridge. His car crossed to the other side of the bridge and was struck by an oncoming vehicle. Greg was very badly injured.
Greg brought a claim against VicRoads. The main defence of VicRoads was that, as a highway authority, it was immune from liability for failing to repair or inspect the highway.
The case was heard in the Victorian Supreme Court. The judge noted that VicRoads’ obligation in relation to road signs was separate from its obligation in relation to roads, and did not attract the highway authority immunity. The judge found that VicRoads knew that black ice formed on the bridge from time to time. Accordingly he thought that the sign was inadequate because it was too far away from the bridge and because it made no reference to ice. The actual sign reading, ‘Slippery when frosty’, gave a misleading impression that the only risk was that the road could be slippery when frost was around.
The judge also found that previous repair works undertaken by VicRoads had created the hump and that accordingly the immunity did not apply. In other words, the danger had been created by something which VicRoads had done, rather than by something which they had failed to do.
The judge declined to make any reduction for contributory negligence. He did not see any reason why Greg should have moderated his speed from the 100 km/h limit when approaching the bridge. Interestingly, he thought Greg was negligent in not slowing down as he passed the sign, but he thought it would have been reasonable for Greg to resume full speed when he saw nothing to be concerned about.
The statutory immunity which VicRoads attempted to rely on was introduced into the Victorian Transport Act after the High Court decision in Brodie v Singleton Shire Council. In that case the High Court had abolished the common law ‘nonfeasance’ immunity for highway authorities.
FURTHER ENQUIRIES
