What happened

Before sunrise in 2012, a left-turning car struck the rear of the plaintiff’s bicycle as he crossed an intersection. The driver admitted breach but disputed the cyclist’s road position and response. Of the injuries claimed, the court accepted a continuing disability in the right knee.

The issues

The court considered whether proceeding in the expectation that the car would give way was careless and whether increasing post-accident earnings ruled out future earning-capacity loss. Historical statutory requirements for non-economic loss and gratuitous care also limited recovery.

The court's decision

The plaintiff kept a proper lookout and braked when reasonably able to recognise the danger, so no contributory reduction was made. His knee disability could restrict future work opportunities, but the court rejected the larger treatment claim and gratuitous care that failed the statutory duration requirement. Judgment was entered for $89,760.12, with costs separate.

Understanding the figures

The $89,760.12 comprised $7,072 past economic loss, $777.92 past superannuation loss, $75,000 future economic loss, $1,910.20 past expenses and $5,000 future treatment expenses. The $75,000 already included future superannuation and should not be increased by adding it again. Non-economic loss and gratuitous domestic assistance were excluded.

What this case shows

A right of way did not remove the need for reasonable care, but the reasonableness of relying on the other vehicle’s apparent intention to yield mattered. Evidence of a future labour-market disadvantage was assessed separately from the claimant’s rising current earnings.

Why another case may differ

This was a historical claim under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 for a 2012 accident. The operative impairment assessment excluded non-economic loss, and gratuitous assistance failed the duration requirement rather than the weekly-hours requirement. It does not establish that cyclists are never contributorily negligent.

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? →