What happened

The Land Cruiser had broken down beside a road and was connected by jumper leads to another vehicle. After advising that the problem could be corrected by moving the fan belt, the plaintiff placed his right hand in the engine bay; without warning, the owner turned the ignition from outside the vehicle. Three fingers were badly injured and part of the index finger was amputated, and the primary judge found negligence without contributory negligence.

The issues

The appeal asked whether activating the starter produced an injury during the vehicle’s driving or a collision within the then statutory motor-accident definition, whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, whether either farm-vehicle or public-liability cover indemnified the owner, and whether the economic-loss assessment was supported.

The court's decision

Although starting the motor was an operation of the vehicle, the repair setting—with the bonnet open and jumper leads attached—was too remote from actual driving, and a hand drawn into the fan-belt mechanism was not a collision with the vehicle. The plaintiff could reasonably expect the owner not to activate the starter without warning, so contributory negligence was rejected. A majority found cover under the public-liability policy, the judges divided on farm-vehicle cover, and the damages were reduced by AUD 60,000 because the earnings evidence did not justify the trial assessment.

Understanding the figures

Of the AUD 178,788 trial total, AUD 78,653 for non-economic loss including interest and AUD 135 in out-of-pocket expenses were unchallenged. The Court substituted AUD 20,000 for past economic loss and a AUD 20,000 future-loss buffer, reducing the judgment by AUD 60,000 to a final verdict of AUD 118,788 effective 29 November 2004.

What this case shows

The case illustrates that the involvement of a vehicle did not, under the historical scheme, automatically convert an injury into a statutory motor accident: the required link to driving or collision still had to be proved. It also shows that economic loss may be substantially reduced where claimed earning capacity, including cash income inconsistent with tax records, is not established by adequate evidence.

Why another case may differ

This is a historical interpretation of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) as applied to a 2000 accident and of particular insurance wording. It should not be treated as a statement of the current motor-accident scheme or different policies, and the final reduction chiefly reflected defects in proof of past economic loss rather than a revaluation of the physical injury.

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? →