What happened

The plaintiff injured his wrist and foot in a January 2015 motorcycle accident with no other eyewitness. Ambulance and hospital records recorded his same-day account of being clipped by a car. Reconstruction experts agreed that an accident at the precise bend he recalled would not explain the motorcycle's resting place at the guardrail.

The issues

The central question was whether a car was involved or the rider simply lost control, and whether his location error undermined his account altogether. If the car was involved, the Court also had to assess the rider's own lookout and opportunity to avoid the collision.

The court's decision

The Court located the accident after the bend but accepted the essential account of slight contact with an oncoming car in the rider's lane. It assessed the rider's failure to keep a proper lookout and take evasive action at 10%. Agreed damages of AUD 650,000 were reduced to AUD 585,000, with the defendant to pay 90% of the plaintiff's costs.

Understanding the figures

Agreed damages were AUD 650,000 and the judgment after the 10% reduction was AUD 585,000. No allocation among damage heads was given. The order for 90% of the plaintiff's costs was separate from damages.

What this case shows

An error in one part of a witness's memory did not automatically discredit the entire account. Contemporaneous records, physical evidence and expert opinions were assessed together, while proof of the unidentified driver's fault did not eliminate the rider's own responsibility.

Why another case may differ

The 2015 accident was governed by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. It is not an assessment under the later Motor Accident Injuries Act scheme. Quantum was agreed, so the decision does not assess individual damage heads or determine every requirement of an unidentified-vehicle claim.

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? →