NSWNSWDC
Hunt v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW & Anor
[2010] NSWDC 88
District Court of NSW|2009-06-12
View original sourceAt a glance
Source factsCourt
District Court of NSW
Decision date
2009-06-12
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (358 paragraphs)
[1]
- The application of that calculus in determining whether there has been a relevant breach of duty of care requires a consideration of the magnitude of the risk, the degree of probability of its occurrence, along with the expense, degree of difficulty and inconvenience associated with taking preventive action.
[2]
- In approaching the required fact finding task on such issues, I am mindful that a court must remain alert to the danger of applying a hindsight analysis to the issue of breach of duty of care, especially where the parties seek to guide such fact findings with expert evidence.
[3]
- In such circumstances it is recognized that care must be taken to avoid an impermissible retrospective analysis rather than the required prospective analysis: Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 442, as was identified and explained by Hayne J at [126], p 461, namely : "That inquiry must attempt, after the event, to judge what the reasonable person would have done to avoid what is now known to have occurred. Although that judgment must be made after the event, it must seek to identify what the response would have been by a person looking forward at the prospect of the risk of injury."