13 In Coventry, the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal had also stated that, in order to prove dangerous driving, the Crown must establish driving in a manner which involved more than a "casual or transitory act or omission".[10] The High Court disapproved that passage, holding that, in an appropriate case, an act or omission may constitute dangerous driving notwithstanding that it is either casual or transitory.[11] Nevertheless, in my view, Mr Forrest is correct in submitting that, in the circumstances of this case, it would not be appropriate to instruct the jury that mere casual or transitory omission or neglect would be sufficient to constitute dangerous driving. Mr Rose has already made available the opening which he intends to make to the jury. The Crown case will be that the accused drove in a manner which was either culpable, or dangerous, because he had, for a substantial period of time on his approach to the level crossing, failed to keep a proper lookout, as a result of which he had failed to heed warnings of, or observe, the approach of the train, with which he ultimately collided. Thus, it will not be part of the Crown case that the criminality of the accused, whether pursuant to s 318, s 24, or s 319, was constituted by any momentary or transitory act or omission by the accused. Based on the manner in which the Crown proposes to put its case to the jury, in my view it would be appropriate for me to direct the jury that, in order to be satisfied of the guilt of the accused in respect of the principal counts on the presentment, or the alternative counts under s 319, in the circumstances of this case it would not be sufficient for the jury to find that the accused had been guilty of no more than transitory or casual act or neglect.