Magnus tG wrote:Qld's Courier Mail, Oct 29, 2012 wrote:Compensation claims were assessed on a "case-by-case" basis that looked at the likelihood that the damage was caused by potholes, loose stones or the general condition of the road.
"While we take a reasonable approach, we're not liable for damage or loss caused by road hazard unless Transport and Main Roads was aware of the hazard and failed to fix it within a reasonable time," the spokesperson said.
No way, that's BS, surely? What rationality is used to justify creation of a product that is widely known to deteriorate creating a physical hazard and not having liability for it?
Isn't it the law (in Victoria at least) that Roads Authorities are required to regularly inspect and maintain their roads? So, even if true that they are not generally liable, check to ensure they have adhered to their legal responsibilities to inspect and maintain.