A recent appeal decision in the Supreme Court of Western
Australia provides a clear example of how the scope of a
motorist's duty to warn other road users about hazards depends
greatly on the particular circumstances of the case. These
circumstances will often include speeds and distances of travel,
driver reaction times and visibility.
Ms Pearce crashed her car into a cow, then swerved and came to a
stop in the opposite lane. She was not negligent in hitting the
cow. She sat in shock for a couple of seconds then got out of her
car, believing that the windscreen had made a cracking noise and
might collapse into the car.
Mr Burns was driving along 13 seconds behind Ms Pearce. He also
collided with the cow, and sustained injuries. Mr Burns alleged
that Ms Pearce was negligent for failing to turn on her hazard
lights as a warning to him.
The scope of a motorist's duty to warn is what, if anything,
a reasonable person would have done in response to the foreseeable
risks to other road users. Given her initial shock and her fear
that the windscreen might break, the trial judge held that Ms
Pearce had not breached her duty of care to Mr Burns when she got
out of her car without first turning on her hazard lights.
The activation of the hazard lights would have only occurred
about five seconds before Mr Burns collided with the cow. It would
not have made any significant difference to the action Mr Burns
took. He only started braking when he saw the cow on the road in
front of him – not when he saw Ms Pearce's brake
lights go on just before she hit the cow, or when he saw Ms
Pearce's car swerve into the opposite lane. He had ample
warning that something was amiss and he should have used that time
to slow down and avoid hitting the cow.
Mr Burns' claim was dismissed and the trial judge's
findings were upheld on appeal.
This case can be contrasted to the leading Queensland case
Lawes v. Nominal Defendant, where a driver who struck and
killed a horse then left the scene was held responsible for the
injuries of a motorcyclist who later struck the same horse. The
interval between the two accidents would have been long enough for
the driver to have effectively warned other road users of the
danger by illuminating the horse with headlights and turning on the
vehicle's hazard lights.
In both cases, the critical deciding factors were the interval
between the first and second accidents, and the probability of the
second accident being avoidable if early warning signals had been
Cooper Grace Ward was named Best Australian Law Firm in the BRW
Client Choice Awards 2010 - Revenue < $50m. Joint Best
Australian Law Firm in the BRW Client Choice Awards 2009 - Revenue
The firm has also been named as the fastest growing law firm in
Australia for 2009 by The Australian.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In response to growing interest in the commercial use of drones or RPAs in Australia, CASA has developed new regulations.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).