What happened
In 2011, the rider braked hard when a parked van moved across his path without signalling, causing wheel lock and a fall with physical and psychological injuries. There was no collision with the van. He initially sued the Nominal Defendant because the owner and driver were unknown, then joined Zaya following evidence emerging during the trial.
The issues
The central questions were whether the vehicle's owner or driver had been sufficiently identified for s 34 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), and whether reconstruction evidence reliably established excessive speed. Quantum also required separating accident-related loss from existing wrist problems and uncertain employment prospects.
The court's decision
The trial judge identified Zaya as the van's owner, dismissed the claim against the Nominal Defendant and awarded damages against Zaya. Zaya v Damirdjian [2022] NSWCA 203 reversed that identification finding because inconsistencies and evidence of other white vans had not been considered cumulatively, concluding that judgment should instead be entered against the Nominal Defendant. The finding of no contributory negligence survived and quantum was unchallenged; the appeal court invited consequential orders, including costs.
Understanding the figures
The historical trial assessment was AUD 375,000, including buffers of AUD 200,000 for past economic loss and AUD 150,000 for future economic loss. Interest was refused at that stage with liberty to apply, and costs were left for argument. The 2022 appeal changed the attribution of liability; the damages assessment itself was not challenged.
What this case shows
Proving that a vehicle caused an accident is different from proving that it belonged to a particular person. The case also shows why expert speed estimates cannot cure unreliable measurements of skid and gouge marks, a part of the trial reasoning upheld on appeal.
Why another case may differ
This concerned the statutory regime for a 2011 accident, and the trial attribution of liability to Zaya must be read with the reversal. Gaps in proof also prevented all continuing complaints from being attributed to the accident. The amount below records the trial assessment, not money received or the eventual costs accounting.
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? →