RTA Vs Dederer Plantiff’s Views

Question: Discuss about the RTA Vs Dederer for Plantiffs Views. Answer: Introduction In the year 1998, on the eve of New year, Mr. Philip, aged 14 at the time dived into the Wollamba river from the Tuncorry Bridge, NSW in Australia. This article will deal with the details of the case as well as the plaintiffs argument against defendant. Jumping off the bridge had been a recurrent aspect, visitors jumped or dived into the river from time to time and Dederer had observed it during his holidays that he had taken since he was a child. The bridge is rather alluring and children always did this for some extra thrill. The previous day Dederer had jumped twice into the river with no injury. He then changed his mind and the next day tried diving that proved fatal and ended up with a spinal injury that cause partial paralysis to the boy. Mr. Dederer filed a case against RTA and the Council in the Supreme Court where the Supreme court apportioned most of the blame to RTA. Not being satisfied with this verdict the RTA and Council further appealed to the Court of appeal and further appealed to the HIGH court on dissatisfaction of the verdict at the Court of Appeal as well. Plaintiffs Argument Plaintiffs argument was simple and logical. In his defence he reported that, The bridge was built in a way that encouraged people to use it as a leisure activity. The railings of the bridge were horizontal making it easily accessible, the top most railing was flat which gave a considerable amount of grip to stand on the railing and dive. The 'no diving sign is not sufficient to implying danger, thats why upon seeing it he didnt recognize the danger involved The Council had informed the RTA on the impending danger and that people had neglected the warnings on the signage boards, but the RTA did not take any action There should have been a sign of danger that should have been displayed to warn people such as, variable water depths or danger. This action could have prevented Dederers accident and saved him from a permanent damage. Lack of a careful risk management analysis on the part of the RTA has shown a clear negligence on their part. Conclusion The High court upheld the RTAs appeal dismissing the cross appeal which is disappointing considering that it was a child who was involved in the accident. The obvious risk factor was the main point in rendering the verdict which assigned the blame to Dederer. According to the High court the warning sign boards should have caused the people to exercise some amount of caution. Surprisingly, the fact that people did not heed to the signboards should have caused the RTA to take initiatives to ensure the safety of those passing by the bridge, which they did not. A patrolling team could have been set up or a single person, who could have kept surveillance on the people visiting the bridge and warned them if they saw anyone trying to take a dive or jump into the river. Such a decision from the High court only shows the state of the Court of Law in the country which does not give any considerations to children. References Hemming. A. N. D. Roads and traffic authority of new south wales v dederer: 20/20 hindsight or an accident waiting to happen? A timely opportunity to revisit and reappraise shirt. [Available https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/2007/3.pdf] [Accessed 11th September, 2016] Hill. S. N. D. "Sec 5F of the Civil Liability Act - obvious risk defence succeeds" : Great Lakes Shire Council -v- Dederer Anor; Roads Traffic Authority of NSW -v- Dederer Anor [2006] NSWCA 101. [Available https://casenotes.curwoods.com.au/?p=634] [Accessed 11th September, 2016] Legal Helpdesk Lawyers. 2014. Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW V Dederer (2007)HCA 42|30 August, 2007. [Available https://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au/2014/08/30/roads-and-traffic-authority-of-nsw-v-dederer-high-court-of-australia-30-august-2007/] [Accessed 11th September, 2016]