From the little bit of 'legal stuff' ive studied as part of my engineering degrees I seem to remember that in the case of infrastructure like roads and bridges etc, as soon as the owner / maintainer of the asset makes a specific improvement or alteration, they must ensure that that piece of infrastructure is designed and constructed to current best practice, or run the risk of being legally liable if an accident occurs. Strangely, if they knew it was unsafe, so long as they didnt touch it, they wernt liable. I think this was called 'malfeasance' or 'nonfeasance' or something. The example I remember being given were the numerous old wooden bridges built years ago that are now too narrow, and rickety, and have dangerous gaurdrail etc. If council didnt touch the bridges, they wernt liable for any accidents / injuries, but if they so much as painted the gaurdrail, they were potentially liable.
Im no lawyer, and im relying on my memory here, but it seems to me that if transurban allow the holds to be put back up, the legal liability in case of injury may swith back to them? I dunno... |