What happened

In December 2016 the plaintiff rode at about 20 km/h along a footpath that was not a shared path because he considered the busy industrial road unsafe. The defendant emerged at about 5 km/h from a driveway where vegetation, fencing and a sign substantially obstructed his view to the left, did not stop before the footpath, and struck the bicycle, leading to reconstructive knee surgery.

The issues

The Court had to decide whether failing to stop at the obscured footpath was a breach, whether the collision would have been inevitable even if the driver had stopped, and how much responsibility should be attributed to the cyclist for riding quickly on a non-shared footpath without a sufficient lookout. Quantum also required allowance for pre-existing psychiatric and substance-dependence conditions affecting employment.

The court's decision

The Court found that stopping and edging forward would have allowed the bicycle to clear the driveway or enabled one or both parties to see and avoid the danger, establishing breach and causation. It assessed the cyclist’s contributory negligence at 30% for riding quickly on the footpath without a proper lookout, reducing gross damages of AUD 246,329.05 to judgment of AUD 172,430.33.

Understanding the figures

Gross damages were AUD 246,329.05, comprising AUD 21,329.05 past treatment expenses, AUD 75,000 past wage loss and AUD 150,000 future earning-capacity loss. After the 30% reduction, judgment was AUD 172,430.33; costs were ordinary to 3 May 2020 and indemnity thereafter. Paragraph [107] records agreed treatment expenses of AUD 23,341.45, but the final table at [110] uses AUD 21,329.05. This account follows the final table and order without silently adjusting that difference.

What this case shows

The case shows that low speed alone may not discharge a driver’s duty when crossing a footpath from a driveway with seriously restricted vision; stopping and edging forward may be the reasonable precaution. It also demonstrates that a vulnerable road user can still receive a substantial contributory-negligence reduction for an unlawful route, excessive speed and inadequate lookout.

Why another case may differ

The claim arose under the historical Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) for a 2016 accident, and the plaintiff did not satisfy the threshold for non-economic loss. Past and future earning loss were assessed as buffers because unrelated conditions made precise employment projections unreliable, so the figures are not a general measure for another claimant.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →