@booboo said in The Best ... in New Zealand:
Here tis. Aussie, in fact Victorian, case here:
http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/RTA_v_Dederer
Am not a lawyer but my reading of that is that the bridge owner has a duty of care. I would think that Shane Jones' assertion that no-one is going to enforce it leaves the Government open to liability.
Could be wrong ...
The High Court permitted an appeal and held that the lower courts had it wrong. There's a difference between preventing a course of action with a reasonable care taken to reduce or prevent a course of action. Ultimately if you give a reasonable warning and people ignore it, you shouldn't necessarily be found to be negligent and liable because of their actions.
As per GUMMOW J:
This was not a case in which the defendant had done nothing in response to a foreseeable risk. To the contrary, the RTA had erected signs warning of, and prohibiting, the very conduct engaged in by Mr Dederer. … In the circumstances, that was a reasonable response, and the law demands no more and no less. …
The appeal should be allowed with costs. The RTA did not breach the duty of care it owed to Mr Dederer. …
