Personal injury in motor accident in NSW - procedural requirements under Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1988 (NSW)

In Hooper v Robinson [2002] QDC 080 (District Court of Queensland, D 4841 of 2001, McGill DCJ, 19.4.2002) McGill DCJ considered the application of the decision in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] 203 CLR 503 to notice requirements such as in s42 of NSW Motor Accident Insurance Act 1988 and concluded such provisions are now substantive.

Practice and Procedure - Proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries commenced before June 18, 2002

In Inglis v Connell [2003] QDC 029 the court considered s6(3) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in relation to the application of the Act. The conclusion reached was that the provision should be interpreted as providing that the requirements of the Act do not apply in respect of personal injury the subject of any proceeding commenced before June 18, 2002.

15 year old volens to BMX riding risks

The Queensland Court of Appeal recently heard a case that raised the defence of volenti on fit injuria. By a majority of 2:1 the court held in Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134 (20 April 2007) that the defence of volenti was established and defeated the action in negligence for damages for personal injury. The facts of the case were quite simple. The plaintiff was 15 years old when he was injured at the Bluebell Park which was controlled and managed by the Caboolture Shire Council (the defendant). The park had a BMX track – built and maintained by the defendant. At trial it was held that although the defendant owed a duty of care to entrants, a duty was not owed to the plaintiff. The judge found that the plaintiff was different to other entrants who used facilities provided by a council in a public park. The plaintiff was not relying upon the defendant to provide a BMX track with jumps that were reasonably safe as the evidence was that the track was regularly altered by third parties and the plaintiff knew that. Therefore it was reasoned that the plaintiff was relying upon the ability of the third parties who modified the jump and his own ability to use it, not the ability of the defendant to provide a reasonably safe track (at [10]). The trial judge also held that if a duty was owed, the defence of volenti applied so as to defeat the claim for damages. This was based upon the evidence that the plaintiff knew of the modification of the jump by third parties and knew of the risk. It was held that the plaintiff ‘had the appropriate subjective appreciation of the risk’ (at [11]).

Mental harm, rescuers and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

At common law, a duty of care may be owed to a claimant who suffers nervous shock or pure mental harm due to witnessing, or hearing about, physical injury caused to another due to a defendant’s negligence. “Pure mental harm” is the ‘impairment of a person’s mental condition’ that is not suffered as a consequence of any other kind of personal injury to them. However, as many accidents have the potential to create a wide circle of mental suffering to bystanders, family members or others not physically injured themselves, it has traditionally been ‘thought impolitic that everybody so affected should be able to recover damages from the tortfeasor.’ ‘To allow such extended recovery would stretch liability too far.’ Nevertheless, whilst adopting a restrictive approach to liability, the common law courts have recognised that a defendant might owe a duty in relation to the pure mental harm suffered by one who foreseeably attends an accident scene to rescue another from a situation created by the defendant’s negligence.

Loss of chance in medical negligence claims now a lost cause?

The question whether the loss of chance of a better medical outcome in cases of medical negligence should be recognised as actionable damage is ‘a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world.’ In April 2010, the High Court handed down its anticipated decision in the case of Tabet (by her Tutor Sheiban) v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537. The issue considered by the court was whether the appellant could claim in negligence for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome. This issue had not been considered by the High Court previously, the most relevant cases being Rufo v Hosking (2004) 61 NSWLR 678 and Gavalas v Singh (2001) 3 VLR 404. Claiming for a loss of chance in a personal injury action raises questions as to recognised damage and causation, and the members of the High Court considered both of these.

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

On 17 March 2010, the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) was assented to.

Intent behind payments determines impact on assessment of damages

In Zheng v Cai (2009) 261 ALR 481 the High Court had to determine whether voluntary payments made to the appellant by a third party were to be taken into account when assessing a claim for damages for personal injury.

Volunteers 'piggy-backing' on their private insurance : an uncertain protection against liability

Volunteering is a very important part of life in Australia with an estimated 36% of the adult population volunteering in 2010. Voluntary work generates economic benefits, addresses community needs and develops the social networks that form the backbone of civil society. Without volunteers, many essential services would either cease to exist or become too expensive for many people to afford. These volunteers, who by definition are not in receipt of any remuneration for their work and services, are exposed to personal injury and to legal liability in the discharge of their functions. It is therefore appropriate that statutory protection is extended to volunteers and that volunteer organisations procure public liability and personal accident cover where possible. However, given the patchwork quilt of circumstances where statutory or institutional cover is available to volunteers and the existence of many and diverse exclusions, it is important to have regard also to what scope a volunteer may have to avail themselves of protection against liability for volunteering activity by relying upon their own personal insurance cover. This article considers the extent of private insurance cover and its availability to volunteers under home and contents insurance and under comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. The most common policies in the Australian market are examined and the uncertain nature of protection against liability afforded by these policies is discussed. This uncertainty could be reduced should the Federal Government through amendments to the Insurance Contracts Regulations standardise the circumstances and extent to which liability protection was afforded to an insured holding home and contents insurance and comprehensive motor vehicle insurance cover.

PI claim clears the statute bar

In Hughes v Impulse Entertainment Pty Ltd & Workcover Queensland [2013] QDC 21 the plaintiff commenced a proceeding more than 60 days after the compulsory conference under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The question to be determined was whether this meant the claim was statute-barred under that Act, even though the relevant limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had not expired

Statute bar remains firm

In Hall v Don Faulkner Motors Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 331 Mullins j considered some significant questions relating to the construction of s11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) as that provision relates to dependency claims.

Solicitors who commence a proceeding without authority act at their peril

In Nominal Defendant v Kisse [2001] QDC 290 a person suffered personal injury caused by a motor vehicle in circumstances where there was a cause of action to which the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applied. The person died before taking the steps required under Pt 4 of the Act and before commencing litigation to enforce that cause of action. The decision also involved a costs order against solicitors on an indemnity basis, providing a timely reminder to practitioners of the importance of ensuring they have proper authority before commencing any court proceedings.

Book Review : "Statutory Will Applications : A practical Guide by Richard Williams and Sam McCullough"

The jurisdiction of Australian courts to make wills for those lacking testamentary capacity is relatively new, having been granted by legislation progressively enacted across the various states and territories between 1996 and 2010. Given increasing numbers of statutory will applications since the legislative reform, and a growing body of law, the publication of the specialist work, Statutory Will Applications: A Practical Guide, by Richard Williams and Sam McCullough, is timely and valuable. This work will be of great interest to those who act for individual clients, especially wills and estates practitioners, but also personal injury practitioners acting for incapacitated persons who have been awarded substantial damages.

Hamcor Pty Ltd v Queensland

The Ipp Report recommendation that for claims for personal injury and death arising from the negligent performance or non-performance of a public function based upon a policy decision, could not establish negligence unless the public authority was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority in the same position would have made it, was adopted in different ways by all jurisdictions except South Australia and the Northern Territory.1 This introduced the public law concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness to civil liability which caused much academic debate.2 Section 36 of the Queensland provides...

Effective emergency messaging during natural disasters: An application of message compliance theories

Study/Objective This research examines the types of emergency messages used in Australia during the response and early recovery phases of a natural disaster. The aim of the research is to develop theory-driven emergency messages that increase individual behavioural compliance during a disaster. Background There is growing evidence of non-compliant behaviour in Australia, such as refusing to evacuate and travelling through hazardous areas. This can result in personal injury, loss of life, and damage to (or loss of) property. Moreover, non-compliance can place emergency services personnel in life-threatening situations when trying to save non-compliant individuals. Drawing on message compliance research in psychology and sociology, a taxonomy of message types was developed to ascertain how emergency messaging can be improved to produce compliant behaviour. Method A review of message compliance literature was conducted to develop the taxonomy of message types previously found to achieve compliance. Seven categories were identified: direct-rational, manipulation, negative phrasing, positive phrasing, exchange appeals, normative appeals, and appeals to self. A content analysis was then conducted to assess the emergency messages evident in the Australian emergency management context. The existing messages were aligned with the literature to identify opportunities to improve emergency messaging. Results & Conclusion The results suggest there is an opportunity to improve the effectiveness of emergency messaging to increase compliance during the response and early recovery phases of a natural disaster. While some message types cannot legally or ethically be used in emergency communication (e.g. manipulative messaging), there is an opportunity to create more persuasive messages (e.g. appeals to self) that personalise the individual’s perception of risk, triggering them to comply with the message.