pictograph prohibiting acts of diving were ineffective. Most of those people who used the bridge were young individuals therefore it could not be assumed that they would take responsibility of taking care of themselves. The bridge had an allurement to young people to jump and dive. RTA was required to provide the standard of care.
The three Court of Appeal judges maintained that a sign which proscribed diving and dutifully explained the nature of danger would have a little more effective compared to RTA signs that were erected or those that were proposed by Dunford J. They argued that it would be expensive but reasonable.
The Court held that a triangular top to the fence should have discouraged the plaintiff from the act of diving and providing…show more content… The court upheld RTA’s Appeal. Gummow J. Who was involved in leading the leading judgement, went ahead to assert the decision in Brodie -v- Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512. He stated that the duty owed by the road authority involved exercising rationale care to make sure that the road is safe for users By doing this, the Honour asserted that RTA did not owe a rigorous obligation to the road users who were careless but careful ones. In all the cases, the same responsibility of reasonable care was owed together with the extent of that same obligation was supposed to be measured alongside a duty whose scope considered the exercise of reasonable care by the same people who use the…show more content… He points out that the court of appeal errored when it overlooked the limited nature of RTA’s control in reference to the actual risk faced by the plaintiff.
RTA did not manage to take care of plaintiff’s voluntary action of diving. There was also the issue of natural variations in the depth of water under the bridge. It is therefore apparent that the injuries arose in a way that was beyond the control of RTA. Judge Gummow J pointed out that there was a deep-seated flaw of his colleague, Tobias JA who pointed out that it was not sensible for RTA not to have taken care of what it knew was dangerous activity. According to Judge Gummow J, Tobias’ statement was odd with the court of appeal’s finding that the risk should have been obvious to a 14 year old.
Judge Gummow J also put into consideration the concept of "allurement”. He noted that it was a concept that was likely to mislead rather than assist. Gummow J pointed out technical use of the term in occupiers’s liability cases, saying that it had long been outdated by the judgment in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited -v- Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR
