What happened
The August 2019 collision at East Lavington caused serious leg injuries, ultimately leading to an above-knee amputation after prolonged treatment. The parties gave sharply different accounts, but CCTV and the joint expert report placed the motorcycle's speed at about 84 km/h before impact. The vehicle was turning right out of a driveway across the rider's direction of travel.
The issues
The court had to assess the driver's lookout and obligation to give way, and distinguish the rider's speeding from his emergency evasive choices. Quantum required a realistic account of what he would have earned despite pre-existing health problems and the forthcoming licence suspension arising from a pre-accident driving offence.
The court's decision
The judge found that the driver entered the road without observing the motorcycle and failed to give way under Road Rule 74. The rider's evasive choices were judged in the emergency he faced, but his speed reduced the available response time and warranted 25% contributory negligence. Judgment was entered for the rider, with costs on the ordinary basis to 14 September 2022 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.
Understanding the figures
Historical damages were AUD 1,448,552.64 before contributory negligence. Deducting 25%, or AUD 362,138.16, produced judgment for AUD 1,086,414.48. The assessment included AUD 475,000 for non-economic loss and AUD 45,000 under Fox v Wood; costs were separate, and the judgment is not a statement of cash received after all adjustments.
What this case shows
Proven speeding did not remove the entering driver's obligation to give way. The court compared the causal importance of each party's conduct and did not treat an emergency choice as independently negligent merely because a better manoeuvre could be suggested afterwards.
Why another case may differ
The 25% apportionment depended on this CCTV, expert evidence and driveway manoeuvre. Both the ordinary speed limit and a separate roadworks limit featured in this 2019 accident, so the percentage is no general rule for speeding cases. The 20% allowance for contingencies in future earnings was separate from the 25% contributory negligence reduction.
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? →