Citation

Langdon N, Greaves S, Grzebieta RH. Proc. Australas. Road Safety Res. Policing Educ. Conf. 2002; 6(1): 131-137.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2002, copyright holder varies, Publisher Monash University)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Statutory highway authorities owe a duty of care to provide a safe road environment for operators of motor vehicles. This duty of care is judged against what should be provided by a "reasonable statutory authority", given the identification of a hazardous situation, and encompasses a decision to act ; and the taking of appropriate action. Until recently, while a statutory authority could be held responsible for misfeasance (acting carelessly), it could not be held responsible for nonfeasance (a pure failure to act). However with the recent abolition of the nonfeasance rule in Victoria, the implications are that statutory authorities must take a more proactive approach in the prevention of dangerous actions occurring. This paper examines the implications of this amendment in the law when dealing with high-risk crash sites where excessive vehicle speed is a known contributory factor. A case study is used to illustrate that the failure to enact known intelligent speed mitigation measures such as policing and speed cameras could potentially render a violation of the duty of care under the nonfeasance ruling.