What happened
On 26 December 2015 at Yamba, the cyclist struck the rear of a rental car after both had left a roundabout and the car slowed and turned left into a motel. Although the impact initially appeared minor, it led to facial fractures, carotid artery dissection and stroke, leaving major permanent language, cognitive and vocational impairment. The parties disputed whether the car had reversed or cut across the cyclist’s path, where the bicycle was positioned and whether the driver should have checked her mirror again.
The issues
The court had to decide whether the car had in fact reversed, whether the cyclist was riding almost directly behind rather than to the left of it, and whether reasonable care required a second central-mirror check or abandonment of the turn. Even if a second check should have occurred, factual causation required proof that it would have changed the manoeuvre and prevented the collision.
The court's decision
The court rejected the reversing scenario and found the driver had adequately signalled, had seen the cyclist in her mirror only seconds earlier, and was not required to look again or abort the turn. It also held that a second look would merely have confirmed the cyclist remained behind, so it would not have changed the lawful manoeuvre or prevented the collision. Judgment was entered for the defendant, with the plaintiff ordered to pay costs.
Understanding the figures
No damages were awarded because the defendant succeeded. The court contingently assessed total damages at AUD 1,986,817.22, including AUD 390,000 for non-economic loss, but that was not the judgment sum.
What this case shows
The decision illustrates that the severity of injury does not itself establish a driver’s breach; duty and causation depend on the precise pre-collision evidence about speed, position, signalling and observation. It also shows why a court may assess damages contingently after rejecting liability, and why that assessment must not be reported as an award.
Why another case may differ
The result depended on detailed credibility findings about the driver and passenger, the final vehicle and bicycle positions, expert diagrams and the plaintiff’s limited recollection. A different signalling interval, road position or state of driver knowledge could produce a different result. The court’s AUD 1,986,817.22 calculation was a hypothetical assessment if liability had been established; no damages were awarded.
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? →