Australia: Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW -v- Dederer [2007] HCA 42

Last Updated: 3 September 2007

30 August 2007
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Callanan and Heydon JJ

In Brief

  • The High Court upheld the RTA's appeal in overturning the New South Wales Court of Appeal's judgment in relation to a 14 year old plaintiff who was rendered partially paraplegic when he dived off a bridge in Forster, New South Wales.


  • The plaintiff was a 14 year old boy who dived off the Forster/Tuncurry Bridge and was rendered a paraplegic.
  • The area was a popular tourist destination and for many years young people had frequently jumped and sometimes dived off the bridge into the estuary below.
  • The plaintiff had spent holidays in the area since he was a small boy and had frequently observed children and adults jumping and diving off the bridge.
  • The plaintiff was aware that, in the area of the beach, the estuary was "very much given to tidal action." He knew that the depth of water dropped suddenly at the edge of the sandbar, and the water in the channel was "very deep". He accepted that the depth of the water in the channels was hard to judge "due to the flow of the water going under the bridge."
  • The plaintiff dived off the bridge and struck his head on a sandbar which rendered him paraplegic.

There were pictograph signs on or at the approaches to the bridge prohibiting diving and signs in words prohibiting climbing on the bridge. The plaintiff saw these signs and ignored them.

  • There was evidence that the RTA had been aware of people frequently jumping off the bridge. The RTA’s response was to confer with police to prevent this however enforcement of the prohibition against jumping proved futile.
  • The RTA replaced existing pictorial signs with "No Diving" signs but these had virtually no effect. The RTA admitted that it knew that the practice of people jumping off the bridge was continuing.
  • There were no previous accidents in relation to diving from the bridge.
  • When asked in evidence what the sign prohibiting diving conveyed to him the plaintiff stated, "it just told me I shouldn't dive – I did not put any danger into it."
  • The plaintiff sued both the RTA and the Great Lakes Shire Council in negligence.

Decision of Trial Judge

  • Judge Dunford in the Supreme Court found both the RTA and Council negligent. His Honour was satisfied that both defendants owed a duty of care to persons jumping and diving off the bridge to warn them of the danger of doing so. His Honour held it was "not sufficient for the defendants to ignore the fact that the signs were being disregarded and it was necessary to consider what, if any, further steps should reasonably have been taken by way of further warning signs, modification of the bridge or otherwise, to prevent injury to persons such as the plaintiff; or to put it another way, the content of the duty of care."
  • His Honour held the RTA had breached its duty of care and was negligent in failing to erect a warning sign containing words similar to "danger, shifting sands, variable depths"; in failing to replace the existing handrail with one composed of vertical rather than horizontal members; and in failing to modify the flat top of the handrail so as to make it more difficult to stand on.
  • His Honour also found there was 25% contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
  • As the RTA had overall control of the bridge, the greater access to funds from those connected with the bridge, had created the danger in the first place and failed to modify the structure when the "no diving" pictographs proved ineffective, his Honour apportioned 80% responsibility to the RTA and 20% to the Council.

Court of Appeal Decision

  • The RTA and the Council appealed against the trial judge's findings of negligence and apportionment. Liability of the Council
  • The majority of the Court of Appeal, per Ipp , Handley and Tobias JJA agreeing, held that the Council exercised a substantial degree of de facto control over the bridge and assumed responsibility for certain aspects of it. The Council therefore owed a general duty of care to a class of persons which included the plaintiff.
  • It was further held that the risk of serious spinal injury from the act of diving off the bridge was obvious by the objective standard of a reasonable 14˝ year old person with knowledge of the area and conditions possessed by the plaintiff. Even without a pictograph sign prohibiting diving, it should have been obvious to a reasonable 14˝ year old that such a dive was dangerous and could lead to catastrophic injuries.
  • The court held that the "obvious risk" provisions in Division 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) relieved the Council of legal responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries as the risk was obvious and therefore the Council's appeal succeeded.

Liability of the RTA

  • The evidence indicated that the RTA was aware that young people were diving off the bridge. The serious risk of devastating injury must have been obvious to the RTA. The Court of Appeal, per Ipp and Tobias JJA, held that the RTA ought to have known that pictograph signs prohibiting diving were ineffective. Many of the visitors to the bridge were young children and young people and the RTA could not assume that they would take reasonable care for their own safety. The bridge constituted an allurement to young people to jump and to dive off it. Accordingly, the standard of care which the RTA was required to exercise was higher than that required from an authority that controlled land where natural features constituted a danger to the public.
  • It was held, per Ipp and Tobias JJA, that a sign which prohibited diving and expressly explained and emphasised the nature of the danger would have been more effective than the sign the RTA erected or the sign proposed by Dunford J. This also would have been an inexpensive and reasonable step for the RTA to take and should have been taken.
  • The Court of Appeal held that a triangular top to the fence may have dissuaded the plaintiff from diving and taken in combination with pool-type fencing and a different sign, would probably have prevented the accident.
  • After weighing the magnitude of the risk and the degree of probability that it would occur, the expense, difficulty and inconvenience to the RTA in taking the steps identified by Dunford J, and the other competing responsibilities and commitments of the RTA, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial Judge's finding that the RTA had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal also held that the plaintiff was 50% responsible for his own injuries.

  • Handley JA, in dissenting, applied Vairy -v- Wyong Shire Council (2005) 80 ALJR 1, in finding that the plaintiff, in undertaking an activity with a serious risk of risk of injury, failed to exercise an appropriate level of care for his own safety.

High Court Decision

  • The majority of the High Court (Gleeson CJ and Kirby J dissenting) upheld the RTA's appeal.
  • Gummow J, who delivered the leading judgment, firstly affirmed the decision in Brodie -v- Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512 that the duty owed by a road authority was to exercise reasonable care so that the road was safe for users exercising reasonable care for their own safety. In applying this test, his Honour held the RTA did not owe a more stringent obligation towards careless road users as compared with careful ones. In each case, the same obligation of reasonable care was owed, and the extent of that obligation was to be measured against a duty whose scope took into account the exercise of reasonable care by road users themselves.
  • His Honour emphasised that the obligation to exercise reasonable care must be contrasted with an obligation to prevent harm occurring to others. The fact that the RTA knew that people were not exercising reasonable care for their own safety in large numbers in diving off the bridge did not mean the RTA owed a duty to prevent them from doing so.
  • His Honour further stated that in simple and complicated cases alike, one thing is fundamental: while duties of care may vary in content or scope, they are all to be discharged by the exercise of reasonable care.
  • The RTA successfully argued that the test for determining a highway authority's liability, being the ordinary test of liability in negligence, had not been correctly applied at trial or in the Court of Appeal. The error was in the lower courts’ finding that the known fact that individuals were jumping off the bridge called for additional preventative measures to be taken by the RTA. As his Honour Judge Gummow pointed out, "the error in that approach lies in confusing the question of whether the RTA failed to prevent the risk-taking conduct with the separate question of whether it exercised reasonable care."
  • His Honour pointed out that, if a contrary approach were taken, defendants would be liable in any case in which a plaintiff ignored a warning sign. The approach taken by the majority of the High Court was that the party who gave the warning could not necessarily be found to have been negligent by reason of the warning having failed.
  • Gummow J found that Ipp JA had erred in his characterisation of the "startling frequency" of "large numbers" of people jumping and diving from the bridge notwithstanding the pictograms. Gummow J held "such a characterisation incorrectly focussed attention on the frequency of an antecedent course of conduct, namely jumping and diving, and not on the probability of the risk of injury occurring as a result of that conduct, namely impact in shallow water." · The Court of Appeal had also overlooked the limited nature of the RTA's control over the actual risk of injury faced by the plaintiff.
  • The RTA did not control the plaintiff's voluntary action in diving, and nor did it create or control the natural variations in the depth of water beneath the bridge. The risk of injury arose from factors which were outside the RTA's control.
  • Gummow J considered there was a fundamental flaw in the reasoning of Tobias JA who held that it was not reasonable for the RTA "to simply ignore what it clearly knew to be a dangerous activity in which children were partaking and who could be expected to be oblivious to the risks involved". His Honour pointed out this statement sits rather oddly with the Court of Appeal's finding that the risk was of such obviousness even to a 14-year old that the Council was absolved of all liability.

The concept of "allurement" was also considered by the court. Gummow J was of the view this was a concept more likely to mislead than to assist, particularly noting the technical use of that term in occupiers' liability cases has long been superseded by the decision in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited -v- Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479.

  • In reaffirming that the principles expressed by Mason J in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 Gummow J stated what the so-called Shirt calculus required was a contextual and balanced assessment of the reasonable response to a foreseeable risk. His Honour held that, ultimately, the criterion was reasonableness, not some stringent requirement of prevention.
  • This is not a case where the defendant had done nothing in response to a foreseeable risk. The defendant had erected signs warning of, and prohibiting, the very conduct engaged in by the plaintiff. As the court stated in Nagle -v- Rottnest Island Authority, a prohibition was "one form of notice – perhaps the most effective form of notice – warning of the danger of diving".
  • Callanan J was of the view the trial judge and Court of Appeal erred in failing to undertake the balancing exercise required by Wyong Shire Council -v- Shirt in a sufficient and proper way. His Honour observed that, although there was clearly a risk of injury, the degree of its probability was very low given there were no other accidents. His Honour also considered the interests of the community needed to be balanced, in being able to walk across the bridge, enjoy the view and lean in comfort on the flat surface of the top rail.
  • His Honour considered the notion that the Plaintiff and other youths would have heeded a worded sign when they flagrantly disregarded a pictograph sign of unmistakable import, strained credibility.
  • His Honour pointed out that a defendant is not an insurer. Defendants are not under absolute duties to prevent injury, or indeed even to take all such measures as might make it less likely to occur. They are obliged only to make such responses as can be seen to be reasonable in the circumstances.

    • Heydon J agreed with the reasoning of the majority of the High Court and disagreed with Kirby J and Gleeson CJ that this was an appeal in which it could be said that the courts below made "concurrent findings of fact" in such a way as to inhibit the High Court from allowing the appeal.
  • Gleeson CJ and Kirby J in their dissenting judgments both agreed that the High Court should not disturb findings of fact in which both courts below have concurred unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the finding was erroneous.


  • The decision affirms the approach taken by the High Court in Wyong Shire Council –v- Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 which was reaffirmed in Wyong Shire Council -v- Vairy (2005) 223 CLR 422, that a breach of duty needs to be considered in light of what a reasonable person would have done to avoid the risk of injury. This approach places an emphasis on whether the defendant's response to the risk of injury was reasonable.
  • This test is to be applied by asking, prospectively, what the exercise of reasonable care required in response to a foreseeable risk of injury, not by focussing in retrospect on how the defendant could have prevented the plaintiff from diving.
  • The court has emphasised that, in applying the principles in Wyong Shire Council -v- Shirt, the criterion is reasonableness, rather than a stringent requirement of prevention of injury.

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)
Related Video
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.