Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004

1.8 General exceptions

(1)

A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that—

(a)

the act or omission complained of took place in response to a situation on a road; and

(b)

the situation was not of the person’s own making; and

(c)

the act or omission was taken—

(i)

to avoid the death or injury of a person; or

(ii)

if the act or omission did not create a risk of death or injury or greater damage to any property, to avoid damage to any property.

(2)

Subclause (1) does not apply if a court is considering, in proceedings for an offence specified in the Act, whether or not a person had complied with this rule.

(3)

A person is not in breach of this rule if that person proves that the act or omission complained of—

(a)

took place in compliance with the directions of an enforcement officer, a parking warden, a traffic signal, or a traffic sign; or

(b)

in the case of an act or omission done by an enforcement officer or a parking warden, was necessary in the execution of the person’s duty.

(4)

A person is not in breach of clauses 2.1 to 2.9, 2.13, or 5.3, or Part 6, in relation to a vehicle, if that person proves that—

(a)

the vehicle was, at the time of the act or omission complained of, actually engaged in a public work on a road; and

(b)

the vehicle was being used on the road with due consideration for other road users; and

(c)

the act or omission complained of was reasonably necessary for the purposes of that work; and

(d)

he or she took all reasonable care to prevent the occurrence of any accident, mishap, collision, or damage, or any injury to or interference with any person, animal, or property arising because of the act or omission.

Compare: SR 1976/227 rr 3A(4), 36(1)