What happened

On 5 January 2001, the plaintiff drove through Heggo's corner on the Princes Highway north of Ulladulla in wet conditions at about 85 km/h. The posted limit was 100 km/h, but a 65 km/h advisory sign preceded the tight bend, and the vehicle's rear tyres were smooth. The car fishtailed, crossed the centre line and struck an oncoming vehicle, seriously injuring the plaintiff and killing the owner-passenger. The road authority knew of repeated wet-weather crashes and inadequate surface friction but had not reduced the limit or installed a slippery-when-wet warning.

The issues

The issues were whether the trial judge erred by treating the road authority's negligence as causal while excluding the worn tyres and the plaintiff's speed, and whether ignoring the advisory speed amounted to contributory negligence. The Court also had to determine how to recognise and apportion multiple causes where eliminating any one factor would probably have prevented the crash.

The court's decision

The Court held that the road condition, smooth tyres and excessive speed were concurrent causes because the accident probably would not have occurred if any one had been removed. The driver's failure to reduce speed after seeing the 65 km/h advisory sign in wet conditions warranted 20% contributory negligence; responsibility for the remaining 80% was divided 75% to the road authority and 25% to the owner's insurer. The AUD 1,211,287.87 trial judgment was set aside and replaced with judgment for AUD 969,030.24.

Understanding the figures

The trial judgment of AUD 1,211,287.87 was set aside. After the plaintiff's 20% contributory-negligence reduction, the substituted judgment was AUD 969,030.24. The cross-claim orders allocated AUD 726,772.68 to the road authority's 75% share and AUD 242,257.56 to the owner's insurer's 25% share; those figures were contribution between defendants, not extra compensation added to the plaintiff's judgment.

What this case shows

The decision makes clear that identifying one sufficient cause does not end the inquiry where other factors also satisfy the but-for test. In a multi-party fault case, the plaintiff's responsibility is first compared with the combined responsibility of all defendants, after which the defendants' shares are apportioned by considering both causal potency and comparative culpability.

Why another case may differ

The percentages reflect particular evidence: prior crash records, measured surface friction, an advisory sign, tyre condition and expert opinions. Driving below the legal limit did not avoid contributory negligence here because the plaintiff saw a lower advisory speed for a wet, tight bend. The monetary orders were historical and took effect from 28 November 2006; they do not state current road-design or motor-insurance standards.

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? →