Ford v Nominal Defendant
[2022] QSC 179 · Martin SJA
A postal delivery officer was riding his motorcycle along Redland Bay Road at Capalaba when an unidentified light truck moved into his lane and dropped a piece of timber onto the road. He swerved, his back wheel ran over the timber, and he was jarred and later found to be injured in his back and ankle. Because he could not identify the truck, he sued the Nominal Defendant, the insurer of last resort for unidentified vehicles. The Nominal Defendant admitted the accident happened and was caused by the unknown driver's negligence, and the parties agreed on the amount of damages. The only real question was whether the rider had made a 'proper inquiry and search' to identify the truck, as the law requires. The court found he had roughly 20 seconds in which he could have positioned himself to read the truck's number-plate and did not try. Because he failed to take this reasonable step, the judge held he had not made a proper inquiry and search, and the claim was dismissed. He recovered nothing.
On appeal, in [2023] QCA 83, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and set aside the trial orders. It held that he did not know he had been injured, was in a state of shock, and acted reasonably in staying in his lane rather than chasing the truck across lanes on a busy road on his small motorcycle, so a proper inquiry and search did not require him to pursue it. The court entered judgment for him for the agreed amount of damages, with interest and costs.
Incident & injury
Motorcyclist rode over a piece of timber that fell from the tray of an unidentified light truck, jarring him and causing injury
Read the findings as text
- Chase it to read the plate? The trial judge said yes.
- No chase required. In shock, and felt unhurt.
- Agreed damages awarded. On appeal, [2023] QCA 83.
- Body regions
- Lumbar / thoracic spine, Left ankle
- Diagnoses
- back pain, ankle pain
- Incident date
- 11 March 2019
- Location
- Redland Bay Road, Capalaba
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 31 August 2022
- Claim type
- MAIA
- Proceeding
- Trial
- Plaintiff outcome
- Unsuccessful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- Occupation
- Postal delivery officer (Australia Post) Machinery Operator / Driver
- Liability
- Partial
- Total damages
- $0
Outcome
The claim was dismissed. The court held the plaintiff failed to establish that proper inquiry and search had been made to identify the unidentified truck, as he had about 20 seconds in which he could have observed the number-plate and failed to attempt to do so. Quantum had been agreed but did not need to be applied.
Key issues
Ford v Nominal Defendant [2022] QSC 179
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.
Learn more about motor vehicle accident claims in Queensland.