Gorringe v Transport Commission (Tas) [1950] HCA 6

'fe

Dised/Appl Be vice Bln Road, APD gy ri Patsy "Senoyey — NetBol Ean ; strelan rod "rrisioner ENB Loum Commistontr Sorts foie coon Psy Copia CEU gens fein " ae iS t00 fae Feetayed YGdRST — Gapial" (8829 1S LIK 98 LGRA 173 387 Goa 105 1007) 94 Ovr Refidto R291 4 SERA 459 Brodie v jeate Appl Not Foll Singleton SC Hee A rove 28) 00 CLR een iS ney siglo ge R512 aay 30 HEEL ere fIB89) (iV aed 5 Our Brodie v Singleton SC om Oe TO. [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] GORRINGE APPELLANT ; PLAINTIFF, AND THE TRANSPORT COMMISSION (TAS.) ReEsPponDeENtT. DEFENDANT, ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA.

Highways—Negligence—Injury to user of highway—Liability of highway authority yr O. ov A. —Non-feasance—Misfeasance—Failure to maintain—Collapse of culrert—Sub- 1959. sidence of roadway—Roads and Jetties Act. 1935-1945 (Las.) (26 Geo. V. GH No. 82—9 Geo. VI. No. 27), 8. 8 Howanr,

Section 8 of the Roads and Jetties Act 1935-1945 (Tas.), which provides March 21. " (1) All State highways and subsidiary roads shall be vested in His Majesty Sypyey, and shall be under the control and direction of the Transport Commission. April 26. (2) Except as otherwise provided, the Transport: Commission shall cause all | |— | State highways and subsidiary roads to be maintained as it shall direct", "Dixon'and"

confers authority upon the Commission to maintain highways and roads as it shall determine but does not impose upon it any duty enforceable by action to do so.

'The plaintiff's motor-truck was driven into a large hole upon a State high- way, caused by the collapse of a culvert through which ran a natural water- course, under such circumstances that the driver had no opportunity of avoiding it. As a result the driver was killed and the motor-truck, its trailer and freight were destroyed. It was shown that, prior to the accident, there had been an appreciable depression on the surface of the road above the culvert which had repeatedly been filled in by the defendant's employees, and that this filling had been blown or washed away from time to time. In an action for damages for negligence against the Transport Commission the trial judge, holding that the defendant incurred no liability for non-feasance, and that there was no evidence of misfeasance, directed a verdict for the defendant. An application for a new trial having been dismissed by the