A truck driver was tragically killed when four youths dropped blocks of concrete from an overpass into the freeway below.
In the case which followed, his employers, having paid benefits to the man’s family, sued the Roads and Traffic Authority which owned and controlled the bridge, seeking to recover the money.
Initially the RTA was found liable for either not screening the bridge when it was built in the 1970s or for not screening it soon enough when the increased risk of persons dropping objects from overpass bridges became known in the early 1990s.
On appeal, the court considered the resources, range of activities and areas of responsibility to be taken into account when evaluating a public authority such as the RTA. It also examined the degree of seriousness of risk, burden of taking precautions and probability of harm.
The court found that a duty of care can be owed by road authorities in relation to criminal conduct by members of the public in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the random and unpredictable nature of criminal activity is relevant when considering whether the duty has been breached in the circumstances. It is therefore a reminder of the significant difficulties that such a claim will involve.
Road authorities can continue to take a measured and principled response to any issue of risk in the area of their responsibility.
As a general rule there is no duty in law for one party to prevent a third party from harming another.
As one judge put it, “The unpredictability of criminal behaviour is one reason why, as a general rule, and in the absence of some special relationship, the law does not impose a duty to prevent harm to another from the criminal conduct of a third party, even if the risk of such harm is foreseeable.”
“Special relationships” where the relationship between two parties may mean that one has a duty to take reasonable care to protect another from the criminal behaviour of third parties (random and unpredictable as such behaviour may be) can include those between employer and employee or school and pupil.
In terms of occupiers, a category of special relationship appears to exist in connection with nightclubs and hotels with an obligation to prevent injury to patrons from the criminal actions of others.
|
Back