Whether or Not the Roads Authority Has Negligence

Group Assignment

Question 1(a)

Issue: Whether or not the roads authority has negligence? If so, what legal action of negligence can Megan and Dylan take against the roads authority?

Rule: There are two steps to determine the negligence action including: 1)whether or not the roads authority owe a duty of care; and 2) whether or not there were significant losses caused by breach of a duty of care, while the losses were reasonably foreseeable.

Application:

Step One – Duty of Care

Refer to L Shaddock and Associates Pty Ltd vs Parramatta City Council, when a person gives information to another upon a serious matter in circumstances where this information provider acknowledges that he is being trusted to give correct information, which the recipient relies on for decision making, this person would owe a duty of care. The roads authority is the entity specifically managing the roads related works. The recipients have a reasonable ground to trust the authenticity of the information provided by it. Indeed, the roads authority has a duty of care to provide correct information. Furthermore, the information requested is within the roads authority’s professional competence. And the feedback in writing from an authority entity constitutes a professional advice, which requires standard of care. According to Rogers vs Whitakers, specialist in a particular field must exercise the level of care. Failure to provide correct information about the highway project in this case is a breach of duty of care, particularly breach of standard of care.

Step Two - Measure the Damage.

In reference to Adeels Palace Pty Ltd vs Moubarak,  a ‘but for’ test can apply here - but for the roads authority’s incorrect advice, Megan and Dylan may not have purchased this property and subsequently suffered from losses. According to Kenny & Good Pty Ltd vs MGICA Ltd, damage is too remote if the defendant could not reasonably foresee that actions or representations would cause the loss that actually occurs, then the liable would be exempt. In this case, it may be arguable that the direct damage derived from authority’s negligent advice has yet arisen by the time Megan and Dylan default on loan and the authority could not reasonably foresee that Megan and Dylan will default on loan. However the incorrect information was one of the key elements being taken into consideration to buy the property at the first place. It is reasonable to foresee that the construction of highway will last for years and impact local housing price due to noise, dust and convenience caused. The value for this property may flat out or even decrease, regardless whether or not there is a loan default. This will not only jeopardize Megan and Dylan’s opportunity to resell this property for profit, but also may cause deficit when they liquidate the property to pay out the default loan. This negligent advice is one of the direct causes of ultimate damages. And the ultimate damages are significant and reasonably foreseeable.