BRITO v FAIRFIELD CITY COUNCIL [2000] NSWCA 215

Reported Decision : (2000) 110 LGERA 44 (2000) 32 MVR 218

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : BRITO v FAIRFIELD CITY COUNCIL [2000] NSWCA 215 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40098/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 8 August 2000 9 August 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 9 August 2000

MARIO BRITO PARTIES : CHANNON REFRIGERATION PTY LIMITED FAIRFIELD CITY COUNCIL ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1; Powell JA at 28; Stein JA at 36

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT 18586/93 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Maconachie AJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

Appellants - P W Taylor SC/S C Dowling COUNSEL : Respondent 1 - D L Davies SC/S A Woods Respondent 2 - M Cashion SC/T H Barrett Appellants - Malcolm Johns & Company SOLICITORS : Respondent 1 - Phillips Fox Respondent 2 - I V Knight, Crown Solicitor CATCHWORDS : NEGLIGENCE - TRAFFIC AUTHORITY - driver failed to comply with give-way sign at intersection - sign obstructed by bus - whether adequate signage - driver with benefit of give-way sign injured - whether Council as traffic authority in breach of duty of care to injured driver CASES CITED: Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs - orders made

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL 40098/99 CLD 18586/93 HANDLEY JA POWELL JA STEIN JA

9 August 2000

MARIO BRITO & ANOR v FAIRFIELD CITY COUNCIL & ANOR

NEGLIGENCE - TRAFFIC AUTHORITY - driver failed to comply with give-way sign at intersection - sign obstructed by bus - whether adequate signage - driver with benefit of give-way sign injured - whether Council as traffic authority in breach of duty of care to injured driver The defendant drove his vehicle into an intersection and collided with the plaintiff after failing to see and comply with the give-way sign facing him. The plaintiff sued the defendant and his employer (the appellants) and they joined the Fairfield Council, the traffic authority responsible for the signage, as cross-defendant seeking contribution or indemnity. The proceedings between the plaintiff and the defendants were settled but the defendants continued with their claim against the Council.