What happened
On 7 January 2015, the appellant was delivering mail by motorcycle and rode around a caravan parked on the nature strip to reach a mailbox. She said that, unlike previous days, a bed extended about 1.14 metres from the rear of the caravan and that a late evasive turn caused the motorcycle to tip, producing back, neck and leg injuries.
The issues
The issues were whether the incident occurred as alleged and whether owners using a public right of passage for their caravan should have foreseen the concealed extension and taken steps such as closing it, warning users or remaining nearby. The appeal also challenged the adequacy of the primary judge's reasons and the treatment of credibility and contemporaneous records.
The court's decision
Meagher and Leeming JJA accepted that a duty was owed but held that the risk, properly framed to include reasonable care by the rider, was so small that doing nothing was a reasonable response. Brereton JA would have found the incident and breach proved, but the majority dismissed the appeal with costs and no damages were assessed.
What this case shows
The case illustrates that a risk must be framed with the particular route to harm and the claimant's obligation to take reasonable care, rather than merely by pointing to a large object on public land. It also shows that disputes about credit and fact-finding may not change the result where an independent finding on breach defeats the claim.
Why another case may differ
The majority's reasoning depended on daylight, a prominent stationary caravan and a risk arising only from a very tight turn; darkness, a more concealed projection, pedestrian use or a repeated known hazard may produce a different result. Brereton JA's dissent demonstrates the evaluative nature of foreseeability and precautions, and the judgment expressly noted that the parties had not addressed possible application of the former motor accidents legislation.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →