CHOTIPUTHSILPA v. WATERHOUSE & ORS. [2005] NSWCA 295

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CHOTIPUTHSILPA v. WATERHOUSE & ORS. [2005] NSWCA 295 CITATION: This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 22/06/2005; 23/06/2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 2 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Giles JA at 98; Ipp JA at 99

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed in part.; 2. Confirm the verdict ordered by the trial judge in favour of the first respondent.; 3. Set aside the verdict ordered by the trial judge in favour of the RTA.; 4. Verdict and judgment in favour of the appellant against the second respondent, with damages to be assessed.; 5. Remit the matter to the District Court for a re-hearing limited to damages. ; 6. Dismiss the second respondent's Notice of Motion filed 24 June 2005.; 7. The parties are to bring in short written submissions as to costs within 7 days of the date of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: TORTS - negligence - driver of motor vehicle struck pedestrian crossing traffic on Anzac Bridge - whether driver breached duty of care - TORTS - negligence - Roads and Traffic Authority responsible for design and construction of Anzac Bridge - adequacy of signage providing information about presence of pedestrian footpath underneath Bridge - whether duty of care owed to pedestrians - whether RTA breached its duty of care - appellant's presence on Bridge unexpected - contributory negligence - EVIDENCE - application that court view the accident site - fresh evidence - whether site has materially altered since date of accident - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss. 53(3)(e) and 54 - REASONS - adequacy of - BIAS - whether trial judge's comments gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)