Spring racing season, Melbourne Cup Day and the run into Christmas parties are some of the busiest weeks of the year for drink driving in Queensland. Every year some of the people hurt in those crashes are passengers. They got a lift home with a friend, a partner, a workmate or a sibling who had been drinking, and they ended up in hospital.
If that has happened to you, you are probably asking two questions. Can I still claim when I got in the car knowing they had been drinking? And will claiming land my friend in even more trouble?
The short answers are that you can usually still claim, and that the claim is dealt with by an insurer. But Queensland has a specific rule for passengers who rely on a driver who has been drinking, and it can reduce your compensation by at least a quarter, or at least half in some cases. This guide explains how that rule works, when it does not apply, and what to do now.
You can usually still claim, even if the driver is a friend
In Queensland, injuries caused by the negligent driving of a registered vehicle are covered by compulsory third party (CTP) insurance. As a passenger, your claim is normally made against the CTP insurer of the car you were travelling in, and it is the insurer that deals with the claim and pays any compensation. If the car was unregistered, the claim goes to the Nominal Defendant instead.
A driver’s criminal charge for drink driving or dangerous driving is a separate matter. It does not stop your compensation claim, and in practice the police evidence gathered for the charge often becomes part of the evidence in the claim.
It is only fair to be upfront about one thing. Queensland’s motor accident laws allow a CTP insurer to recover its costs from a driver who was unable to exercise effective control of the vehicle because of alcohol or drugs. If your friend was that affected, the insurer may pursue them whether or not you claim, because the right comes from their driving, not from your decision. Many people find it helps to know that the claim itself is between you and the insurer, and that looking after your own recovery is not a betrayal of anyone.
The rule most passengers have never heard of
Queensland’s Civil Liability Act 2003 contains a rule aimed squarely at people who accept a lift from someone who has been drinking.
It applies if you were at least 16, you relied on the care and skill of a driver who was intoxicated, and you knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that they were intoxicated. “Intoxicated” means affected by alcohol or a drug to the point that their ability to take proper care is impaired. It is not tied to a particular blood alcohol reading, and it covers drugs as well as alcohol.
Being over the legal limit and being “intoxicated” are not the same thing. Learner, P1, P2 and probationary drivers in Queensland must have a zero blood alcohol reading, so a P-plater who has had a single drink is breaking the road rules. That does not automatically make them intoxicated under the Civil Liability Act. The question is whether the alcohol actually impaired their ability to drive with proper care, and whether you knew or should have known it had. A P-plater who had one drink and seemed completely normal may not trigger the rule at all, although insurers may still argue the point. It works the other way too. A driver on an open licence can be under 0.05 and still be intoxicated if alcohol or drugs were affecting their driving and the signs were there to see.
Cannabis raises the same issue in a sharper form. In Queensland it is an offence to drive with THC in your system at all, whether or not you are affected by it, and that includes prescribed medicinal cannabis. THC can show up in a saliva test for days after use. From 1 December 2026 the penalties get tougher, with minimum fines for drug driving and a new offence for driving with both drugs and alcohol in your system. None of that changes how a passenger’s compensation claim works. A positive test is not the same as being intoxicated. For the Civil Liability Act rule to apply, the drug has to have been impairing the driver’s ability to drive with proper care, and you have to have known or had reason to know. A friend who smoked on the weekend and drove you home on Tuesday is a very different case from one who smoked in the car before setting off. There is also no blood-reading shortcut to the higher 50% minimum for drugs. For a drug-affected driver, that applies only if they were so affected that they could not exercise effective control of the vehicle.
Where the rule applies, the law presumes you were partly responsible for your own injuries, which lawyers call contributory negligence. Unless you can rebut that presumption, your compensation must be reduced by at least 25%, and a court can reduce it by more if the circumstances justify it.
There is one part of the rule that works in passengers’ favour. The insurer cannot argue that you voluntarily accepted the risk and should get nothing at all. That old common law defence is expressly switched off for these cases. The fight is about how much your compensation is reduced, not whether you get any.
When the reduction rises to 50%
The minimum reduction doubles to 50% if you were a passenger in the car and the driver either:
- had a blood alcohol concentration of 150mg or more per 100mL of blood (a reading of 0.15, three times the general 0.05 limit), or
- was so affected by alcohol or a drug that they could not exercise effective control of the vehicle.
In those cases the law also treats you as having relied on the driver, so that element does not need to be proved against you. Whether you knew, or should have known, they were intoxicated is still part of the test.
To put numbers on it, suppose a passenger’s injuries are assessed at $400,000. A 25% reduction leaves $300,000. A 50% reduction leaves $200,000. Those are still significant sums, which is why the next section matters so much.
Insurers do not always stop at the minimum, either. In National Injury Insurance Agency, Queensland v Harrison, a young apprentice cabinet maker suffered a severe brain injury as a passenger in a car that left the road and hit a tree. The driver’s blood alcohol reading was 0.118, below the 0.15 threshold, and cannabis was also detected. The CTP insurer admitted the driver was negligent, but argued the passenger’s compensation should still be cut by 50% for travelling with an intoxicated driver. That was the insurer’s position, not a finding. The 2021 decision dealt with a procedural question, and the judge said the level of any contributory negligence was a matter of speculation at that stage. It does show how hard insurers can push on this point, even below the 0.15 line.
When the presumption does not apply, or can be rebutted
The rule is strict, but it does not catch every passenger who was in a car with a driver who had been drinking.
You were under 16. The presumption only applies to passengers who were at least 16 at the time.
You did not know, and had no reason to know. The test is whether you were aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, that the driver was intoxicated. If they had been drinking somewhere else, picked you up later, and showed no signs of it, the rule may not apply at all. This is an objective question about what a reasonable person would have noticed, so being affected by alcohol yourself is unlikely to help you here.
The drinking had nothing to do with the crash. If you can show the driver’s intoxication did not contribute to the accident, the presumption is rebutted. A sober driver would not have avoided a car running a red light into the side of you, for example. In a crash like that, the claim may lie against the other driver’s CTP insurer in any event.
You had no reasonable alternative. The presumption is also rebutted if you could not reasonably be expected to have avoided relying on the driver. In Allen v Chadwick, a 2015 High Court decision under South Australia’s similar law, a young pregnant woman was left in the dark in an unfamiliar country town at about 2am when her companion insisted on driving. The court accepted that, in those circumstances, she could not reasonably have been expected to stay behind on the roadside alone. Every case turns on its own facts, but the question is what was realistically available to you at the time, not what would have been ideal.
It is up to the passenger to prove these points, so the evidence you gather early often decides them. Our guide to liability evidence explains why.
Other things that can reduce a passenger’s claim
Insurers also look closely at whether you were wearing a seatbelt, since not wearing one can lead to a further reduction if it made your injuries worse. And if you were intoxicated yourself, the insurer may argue that a separate presumption applies to you as well. That presumption bites hardest on intoxicated pedestrians, where the drinking is often part of how the accident happened, such as stepping out onto a dark road. It is usually a harder argument against a passenger. The presumption can be rebutted by showing your intoxication did not contribute to the negligence that caused the crash, and a passenger sitting in the car rarely has any effect on how it is driven. These arguments do not always succeed, but they are raised often enough that it is worth getting advice before you give the insurer a detailed account of the night.
What a reduced claim can still be worth
A passenger’s CTP claim can include compensation for pain and suffering, past and future lost income, medical and rehabilitation costs, and the value of care provided by family and friends. For serious injuries such as spinal injuries or brain injuries, future income and care are usually the largest parts of the claim.
That is why a reduction, even a 50% one, rarely makes a serious claim worthless. You can see what Queensland courts have awarded in real motor vehicle cases in our personal injury quantum database and our review of 2025 motor vehicle accident judgments.
What to do if this has happened to you
Get medical treatment and tell the doctor how it happened. Make sure the records show it was a car crash. Some injuries, including concussion and whiplash, can be worse than they first seem.
Make sure the police know about the accident. A CTP claim requires that the accident has been properly reported to police. If police attended, keep the event number, and note any breath or blood test they carried out. It may later be important evidence of the driver’s blood alcohol level.
Write down how the night unfolded, while you still remember it. Where you were, who was drinking and roughly how much, whether the driver seemed affected, whether you tried to get a taxi, rideshare or another lift, and why you ended up in the car. Be accurate and honest. A clear, early account is far more persuasive than one pieced together months later.
Keep everything, and delete nothing. Texts arranging the lift, rideshare app screenshots showing surge pricing or no cars available, and messages from that night can all matter. Our post-accident evidence checklist covers what else to gather, and our guide to the steps to take after a car accident walks through the first few weeks.
Be careful what you say, and to whom. Do not give a recorded statement to an insurer, sign anything, or post about the night on social media before getting advice. Comments made in the first few days are often quoted back to passengers later.
If the other vehicle drove off, the claim may lie against the Nominal Defendant, which is how hit and run claims work, and the time limits are much shorter (see below).
Time limits you need to know about
- Notice of Accident Claim Form. The formal CTP claim form is generally due within nine months of the accident (or of symptoms first appearing), or within one month of first consulting a lawyer about a claim, whichever is earlier.
- Unidentified vehicles. Notice to the Nominal Defendant is due within three months, and the claim is barred altogether if notice is not given within nine months.
- Court proceedings. Generally three years from the date of the accident, with different rules for children.
Late notice is sometimes possible with a reasonable excuse, but it is much better not to rely on that.
Frequently asked questions
Usually yes. Your claim is made against the CTP insurer of the car you were in. However, if you knew or should have known the driver was intoxicated, Queensland law presumes your compensation should be reduced by at least 25%, rising to at least 50% if the driver’s blood alcohol reading was 0.15 or higher or they could not control the car.
The claim is made against the CTP insurer, which deals with it and pays any compensation. If the driver was so affected by alcohol or drugs that they could not control the vehicle, the insurer has a right to recover its costs from them, but that right arises from their driving rather than from your decision to claim.
P-platers must have a zero blood alcohol reading, so any alcohol at all is a traffic offence. But the reduction under the Civil Liability Act depends on whether the driver was intoxicated, meaning the alcohol actually impaired their ability to drive with proper care, and whether you knew or should have known that. A low reading on its own does not necessarily trigger the reduction, although insurers may still argue that it does.
Driving with any THC in your system is an offence in Queensland, even if you are not affected by it. But a positive test does not by itself mean the driver was intoxicated for the purposes of a compensation claim. The reduction depends on whether the drug was actually impairing their driving, and whether you knew or should have known that. The higher 50% minimum applies to drugs only if the driver could not exercise effective control of the vehicle.
Sometimes. The presumption does not apply if you were under 16, or if you did not know and had no reason to know the driver was intoxicated. It can also be rebutted if the drinking did not contribute to the crash, or if you had no reasonable alternative to accepting the lift.
You can still claim, but the insurer may argue that your own intoxication should reduce your compensation as well. That argument is much more common against intoxicated pedestrians than passengers, because a passenger’s drinking rarely has anything to do with how the car was driven. Whether it succeeds depends on the facts, so it is worth getting advice before describing the night to the insurer.
The Notice of Accident Claim Form is generally due within nine months of the accident, or within one month of first speaking to a lawyer, whichever is earlier. Court proceedings generally must start within three years. Shorter limits apply if the other vehicle cannot be identified.
Being hurt by someone you trusted to get you home safely is hard enough without trying to work out insurance law at the same time. If you are unsure whether the drinking rules affect your claim, or how much they might reduce it, Roche Legal can look at what happened and give you a straightforward view of your options. There is no obligation, and a conversation costs nothing.
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Time limits and your options depend on your circumstances.