Case Analysis: Roads and Traffic Authority v Dederer (2007) HCA 42

This case study analyzes the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) HCA 42 case, where a 14-year-old boy was partially paralyzed after diving off a bridge. The case revolves around the issue of negligence and the Roads and Traffic Authority's (RTA) duty of care. The plaintiff argued that the RTA failed to maintain safety measures, while the defendant contended that they were not responsible for preventing the dangerous conduct of individuals. The High Court accepted the appeal, stating that the RTA did not have a duty to prevent dangerous conduct, even though the bridge design made diving easier and the RTA was aware that young people jumped off the bridge. The judgment analyzed the arguments from both parties, including the 'No Diving' sign, the lack of reported incidents, and the RTA's failure to conduct a risk management analysis. The analysis also highlights the court's strict interpretation of negligence and the plaintiff's argument about the RTA's failure to take appropriate action to prevent the injury of a minor. The conclusion critiques the High Court's decision, arguing that the court should have considered Mr. Dederer's age and the RTA's failure to enhance safety measures after recognizing the risk.

Business Law
ROAD S AND T RAFFIC AUT H OR IT Y V
DE D E RE R (20 07) H C A 4 2

Introduction
• In Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v
Dederer (2007) HCA 42 case, an appeal
was made by RTA against the order to
Trial Court.
• A 14-year-old boy jumped off the bridge
into the water due to which he was
partially paralysed.
• The High Court accepted the appeal by
stating that the RTA did not have a duty to
avoid the dangerous conduct of people.

The facts of the case
• Mr Dederer lived near the Forester Tuncurry
Bridge, and he used to go there during holidays.
• He had seen many people diving in the water by
jumping off the bridge which intrigued him to try
it himself.
• Mr Dederer ignored the ‘No Diving’ sign, and he
dived into the water. He was partially paralysed
due to hitting his head in the sandbar (Jade,
2007).
• The family of Mr Dederer filed a suit for
negligence for failing to breach their duty of care.

The issues raised by both
parties
• The plaintiff raised the issues based on
breach of the duty of care, the calculus of
negligence and probability.
• The plaintiff argued that the risk was clear,
however, the RTA of NSW failed to maintain
the level of security to prevent people from
jumping off the bridge.
• The defendant raised the issue that it owed a
duty of care to protect the public but a duty
of care to prevent the dangerous conduct of
people cannot be imposed (Gleeson, 2013).

The arguments presented
• Defendant’s Arguments
• The plaintiff decided to dive into the water and
nonce influenced his decision (Austlii, 2007).
• The sign of ‘NO Diving’ was set up by the RTA.
• In previous years, no serious incident was
reported which was caused due to diving in the
water.
• A duty of preventing people to not indulge in
dangerous conduct cannot be imposed over RTA.
• The defendant provided that it was an ‘obvious
risk’ based on which a negligence claim cannot
be raised.

The arguments presented
• Plaintiff’s Argument
• The design of the bridge made it easier for people to
jump off it and dive it into the water. Diving could be
stopped by increasing the height of fencing.
• RTA did not take any initiative even after determining
that a large number of young people dive off the bridge.
• It was clear that people ignored ‘No Diving’ sign and
RTA should have set up new signs which warn people
about the probable risk (Mondaq, 2007).
• The council did not take appropriate care to prevent
young people from diving into the water.
• RTA failed to conduct a basic Risk Management Analysis
ever after realising the potential of the risk.

The judgement of the court
• The High Court accepted the appeal of RTA of
NSW by stating that it has a duty of care to take
appropriate care to ensure that security
measures are taken by setting up signs.
• However, RTA did not have a duty to prevent
people from engaging in the dangerous conduct.
• Gummow J held that the decision of Dunford J
was wrong because he failed to see the limited
scope of RTA to identify the happening of injury
(Douglas, 2017).
• RTA cannot be held liable for the mistake of Mr
Dederer.

Analysis of the judgement
• The judgment of High Court did not consider that Mr
Dederer is just a minor who is unable to make the
right decision.
• The plaintiff’s arguments were solid however the court
gives more weightage to the defendant’s arguments
by strictly interpreting the definition of negligence.
• The law did not consider that a person is able to make
a decision about his life until 18 years still the High
Court did not consider the mistake of RTA.
• The High Court judgement was wrong because the
case should be analysed by understanding that Mr
Dederer is just a minor and he suffered injury due to
the failure of duty by RTA.

Conclusion
• The High Court accepted the appeal by
considering that RTA did not have any duty of
care which was wrong.
• The court should have considered that Mr
Dederer is only 14 years old, and he is unable to
make decisions about his life.
• Even after realising that young people are
jumping off the bridge, RTA did not increase the
security measures.
• Thus, the judgment of the court is wrong
because it should have evaluated the case by
considering that Mr Dederer was a minor.

References
• Austlii. (2007) Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA
42. [Online] Austlii. Available at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/42.html
?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Roads%20and%20Traffic
%20Authority%20of%20NSW%20and%20Dederer%20(2007)%20)
[Accessed on 22nd May 2018].
• Douglas, R. (2017) Duty content under the CLA. Precedent (Sydney,
NSW), 140, p.4.
• Gleeson, A.M. (2013) Finality. Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar
Association, p.33.
• Jade. (2007) Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA
42. [Online] Jade. Available at: https://jade.io/article/13922 [Accessed on
22nd May 2018].
• Mondaq. (2007) Australia: Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW -v-
Dederer [2007] HCA 42. [Online] Mondaq. Available at:
http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/51912/cycling+rail+road/Roads+and
+Traffic+Authority+of+NSW+v+Dederer+2007+HCA+42 [Accessed on
22nd May 2018].