It was also found that the plaintiff
was travelling at 80 kph despite having passed a number
of signs warning of road works ahead and requiring motorists
to reduce speed to 60 kph.
The Court found that the loose gravel on the road surface
created a situation of extreme danger and in such conditions,
even at 60 kph, only the most experienced driver would
be able to recover from a skid. That being the case,
The Court found that the Council had breached its duty
of care to motorist by failing to have a sign warning
of loose gravel on the road surface.
The Court of Appeal rejected the Council’s submission
that the plaintiff’s failure to take any notice
of the speed limit and road works signs probably meant
he would also have ignored a loose gravel warning sign.
The Court found that the damages should be reduced by
one-third for contributory negligence and rejected the
Council’s submission that the reduction should
have been at least two-thirds.
This decision does not sit very comfortably with the
High Court decision in Commissioner of Main Roads v
Jones (discussed in the last issue of Insurable
Interest). Applying the reasoning of the High Court
in that case to the facts in this case would arguably
result in a finding that the failure to warn had not
caused the accident because the plaintiff would probably
not have slowed down if he saw a “loose gravel”
sign: Copmanhurst Shire Council v. Watt.
|
