CIPRI v GIO OF NSW SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL HANDLEY JA, SHELLER JA and COLE JA 18 June 1996 [1996] NSWCA 102 MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT — liability — contributory negligence. On 30 January 1987 the plaintiff suffered a motor vehicle accident which the trial judge found was a result of the plaintiff being misled by the appearance of a green arrow but actually entering an intersection against a red light. The defendant had entered the intersection on a green light while travelling around sixty kilometres an hour. Another driver going in the same direction and being overtaken by the defendant had braked though the defendant had thought that this was to enable a turn. Counsel for the plaintiff appealed contending that there was contributory negligence on the Handley JA. This is an appeal by a plaintiff from a decision of Twigg QC DCJ who heard the plaintiff's claim arising out of motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30 January 1987. The accident occurred at the intersection of Brennan and Catherine Streets, Lilyfield. The plaintiff was travelling south in Catherine Street and approaching the intersection with Brennan Street. This intersection was controlled by lights. There was a dispute at the trial as to the situation with regard to the lights at the time of the collision but the trial judge found that the defendant's insured driver was travelling in the intersection with a green light in his favour, and that the plaintiff had entered the intersection againstdriven in excess of thirty kilometres an hour so Mr Flowers had been travelling at that low speed along Brennan Street. When Brennan Street became a two-lane street for traffic travelling north, Mr Bell moved out from behind Mr Flowers and attempted to pass him; accelerating up to sixty kilometres an hour or thereabouts. However, he was not proceeding above the speed limit. There was apparently an open traffic lane in front of him and he had the green light in his favour. In these circumstances, his speed alone, in my judgment, cannot constitute any proper basis for a finding of negligence. The other matter relied upon by Mr Durie related to Mr Flowers" conduct as he entered or approached the intersection. Mr Flowers said that he applied his brakes when he saw that the two cars would collide. Obviously, by that time, it was too late for Mr Bell to take any effective, avoiding action so that the braking action of Mr Flowers cannot have operated as any effective warning to Mr Bell. Mr Bell in his evidence-in-chief given in statement form said that as he overtook Flowers, he found that he had braked and he thought that Flowers intended to turn to his right into Catherine Street, that is towards the north. There was in my view, no basis on which Mr Bell should have been alerted by any action on the part of Mr Flowers, which he interpreted as indicating an intention to make a right hand turn into Catherine Street, into believing that there was a danger of a collision immediately in front of him Orders accordingly. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Counsel for the appellant: G Durie Solicitors for the appellant: Galluzzo Golotta Andriano Counsel for the respondent: D J Russell Solicitors for the respondent: GIO (Transport Accident Compensation)