Australia: Bus driver found not to be negligent in manner of driving to avoid a rear-end collision

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 13 April 2013
Article by Jennifer Mithieux and Nathan Morehead

Penrith City Council v East Realisations Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] NSWCA 64

Judgment date: 4 April 2013
Jurisdiction: NSW Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • To find a driver negligent in a situation where both vehicles had the benefit of a green light, a higher standard of care than the normal requirement to exercise reasonable care in all the circumstances would be imposed.
  • The myth that it is reasonably foreseeable that a car might suddenly stop when presented with a green light does not, in itself, give rise to finding of want of duty of care simply because a passenger was injured when a driver took evasive action to avoid a collision.
  • It does not necessarily follow that a breach of a Road Rule leads to a finding of negligence. Rather, such breach may constitute evidence of a breach of duty of care.
  • Where an insurer insures a number of vehicles, it is not necessary to identify the particular vehicle at fault. It is only necessary to establish that that insurer is the relevant insurer for all vehicles identified.


On 21 July 2003, the worker (who was employed by Penrith City Council) was injured whilst a passenger on a bus, having been thrown from her seat as a consequence of the bus driver braking heavily in order to avoid colliding with the rear of a motor vehicle which had come to an abrupt stop at a set of traffic lights in front. Both the bus and the car were being driven in a northerly direction and, on their approach to the intersection, had a green light. Particulars of the registration of the car were not obtained and the incident was not reported to police.

The worker made a claim against Penrith City Council pursuant to her workers compensation rights. The worker did not pursue a claim against the CTP insurer of the bus or the car.

The cause of action arose out of the indemnity conferred by s 151Z(1)(d) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The workers compensation insurer (the Appellant) sued in its own name to recover compensation paid to the worker against East Realisations Pty Limited (the First Respondent), alleging that they were the owners of the bus at the relevant time and the bus driver was negligent. The Appellant relied upon Rule 126 of the Australian Road Rules, which requires a driver to drive a sufficient distance behind the vehicle travelling in front so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.

The workers compensation insurer also joined the Nominal Defendant (the Second Respondent), alleging the identity of the car could not be established after due search and inquiry and the driver of the car was negligent.

The proceedings were heard at first instance in the District Court of NSW by Levy SC DCJ, who entered a verdict and judgment in favour of the Respondents. His Honour ultimately found that the Appellant had not established that either the bus driver or the driver of the car was in breach of their duty of care. Secondly, the Appellant had not established that the First Respondent was the owner of the bus. Thirdly, the Appellant had not satisfied the requirements of s 34(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act so as to entitle it to recover against the Second Respondent if the driver of the bus had been negligent.

The Appellant challenged the findings of Judge Levy in the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal Decision

The leading judgment was delivered by his Honour Tobias AJA, with their Honours McColl JA and Meagher JA concurring.

There were four issues which were determined on appeal. Firstly, the negligence of the bus driver. Secondly, the negligence of the driver of the car. Thirdly, the identity of the owner of the bus. Fourthly, due inquiry and search with respect to the car.

The Appeal with respect to the negligence of the bus driver

Justice Tobias noted that the worker was the only person to give evidence at the hearing, which was held some nine years following the accident. No evidence had been given as to the speed of the bus, the steepness of the terrain leading up to the intersection, the distance the bus had travelled behind the unidentified car, or the distance between the bus and the car when the latter stopped suddenly and the former applied its brakes. At all material times both the car and the bus had a green light permitting each to proceed into the intersection.

Tobias AJA accepted that there may be some cases in which a bus driver may be found negligent in failing to leave a sufficient distance between his bus and the vehicle in front of it where it is reasonably foreseeable that that vehicle may stop. However, in this particular situation, the mere fact that it was reasonably foreseeable that a car might stop suddenly despite having a green light does not give rise to a finding of breach of due care simply because a passenger is injured when a driver takes action to avoid a collision. Additionally, even if it was reasonably foreseeable that the car might suddenly stop, this was unlikely in the circumstances and, therefore, any risk of harm was low.

In finding that the Appellant had not established error on the part of the primary judge in rejecting its claim that the bus driver was negligent, and that there was no breach of Rule 126 of the Road Rules, Justice Tobias made the following comments at paragraph 52 of the Judgment:

"In my view to find the bus driver negligent in the present case given the paucity of evidence and context in which to assess the driver's response to the car suddenly stopping at a green traffic light would impose a higher standard upon the bus driver than the requirement to exercise reasonable care in all the circumstances mandated. Accordingly in my opinion the appellant has not established error on the part of the primary judge in rejecting its claim in that the bus driver was negligent."

The Appeal with respect to the negligence of the driver of the car

The Appellant maintained the submission that the prevailing traffic conditions exposed a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury to the worker in the event the car stopped suddenly at the intersection and required urgent action on the part of the bus driver.

In support of that submission, the Appellant contended that the presence of the green light created an expectation that the car would proceed through the intersection rather than stop and the driver, having "slammed on her brakes and stopped dead at the intersection without warning", created a risk of harm to the worker.

Justice Tobias upheld the finding by the primary judge that the Appellant's submission was unsustainable, with there being potentially numerous reasons why the car stopped at the green light. Tobias JA agreed with the primary judge that there was no evidence of the knowledge of the driver of the car, and acceptance of the Appellant's submission that the driver of the car had been negligent would require an inferential finding involving unwarranted and impermissible speculation.

The Appeal with respect to the ownership of the bus

The evidence confirmed that, in 2003, the First Respondent was known as Westbus Pty Limited (Westbus). At the relevant time it operated a large Western Sydney bus business through various corporate entities.

The Appellant sought a finding that the bus was a Westbus bus for which the First Respondent was responsible. However, the driver could not be identified in that there was no evidence as to the registration number of the bus.

It was not disputed that the bus was a Mercedes Benz Model LO812, was yellow in colour and had the name Westbus and the company's logo stencilled or painted on its near side.

The RTA Certificates identified 8 yellow buses of that model, all of which were registered to Westbus. The Certificates identified Zurich Australia as the relevant CTP insurer of all 8 yellow buses. During the District Court trial, it was submitted by the First Respondent that it could not be concluded that one of the 8 buses of that make, model and colour registered to Westbus as of 21 July 2003 was the precise bus involved in the subject incident. This submission was accepted by the primary judge.

The Appellant relied on the decision by the Court of Appeal in The State of New South Wales v Nominal Defendant2 . In that case it was determined that a bus which was involved in a motor vehicle accident was owned by the State Transit Authority and, therefore, the identity of the insurer was established, there being only one such insurer. Santow JA, with whom Beazley JA and Stein AJA agreed, found that where a plaintiff suffers bodily injuries as a result of the fault of a bus driver, the CTP insurance held by the State Transit Authority will respond. It does not matter for that purpose that the particular bus cannot be identified by its registration number.

Tobias AJA concluded that, in the present matter, the evidence established that all 8 of the relevant buses were owned by Westbus Pty Limited. There was no evidence that Westbus operated buses of the relevant model type and colour which it did not own. Accordingly, his Honour was of the view that, on the balance of probabilities, it was open to conclude that the bus involved in the subject incident was one of the buses registered in the name of Westbus Pty Limited and, therefore, the First Respondent's insurer would respond. In so arriving at this conclusion, Tobias AJA disagreed with the trial judge's findings in this regard.

The Appeal with respect to due inquiry and search of the car

This issue was not determined by the trial judge at first instance.

Justice Tobias noted the principles outlined by the Court of Appeal in Nominal Defendant v Meakes3 , as well as the fact the evidence on the identity of the car was confined to the worker's statement that it was a red or maroon sedan and the issue of establishing the identity of the car did not arise until 2008 (by which time the First Respondent was in liquidation).

The Second Respondent submitted that an inquiry should have been made of the liquidator of the First Respondent so as to ascertain whether any incident report had been provided, or whether there was any other document which might identify the registration number of the bus on the relevant route on the relevant date so as to ascertain the identity of the bus driver and, (possibly) in turn, the identity of the car.

Tobias JA rejected this argument, stating that "the trail was not merely cold, but frozen, at that point" and any such inquiry of the liquidator would have been "purely ritualistic" and "proved futile".

Accordingly, his Honour found that the requirements of s 34(1) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act were satisfied such that if the Appellant had established that the driver of the car had been negligent, then it would have been entitled to recover from the Second Respondent.


Whilst the Appellant was successful in challenging the findings made at first instance in relation to ownership of the bus and the liability of the Second Respondent in respect of the car, it was unsuccessful in challenging the findings that neither the bus driver nor the driver of the car was negligent. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs.


This is an interesting case for insurers, particularly those who insure buses.

When determining liability on a claim, it is important to keep in mind the individual factual situations and whether or not they give rise to a breach of duty of care. The mere fact that a party has failed to brake in time to avoid a rear-end collision does not necessarily mean that negligence will be found.

Where an insurer insures all relevant buses identified (even if a plaintiff is unable to prove which individual bus was involved), a court will find that the insurer should respond as, on the balance of probabilities, the bus involved would have been insured by that insurer.


1 McColl and Meagher JJA, Tobias AJA
2 [2004] NSWCA 328
3 [2012] NSWCA 66 at [30]-[45]; [54]-[55]

Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (Legal Partnership Survey, The Australian July 2010)

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.