Ford v Nominal Defendant
[2023] QCA 83 · Applegarth J (Morrison JA and Gotterson AJA agreeing)
A postal delivery worker was riding his small motorcycle home from work when a block of timber fell from the tray of an unidentified utility vehicle in front of him. He ran over the wood, was jolted, and felt some pain but believed he was unhurt, returning to his depot in shock. Over the following weeks his back worsened and an MRI revealed a disc prolapse and torn nerve sheathing. Because the vehicle and driver were never identified, he claimed against the Nominal Defendant. The only contested issue was whether he had made 'proper inquiry and search' to identify the vehicle, which is required before the Nominal Defendant becomes liable. The trial judge had found he should have chased the vehicle to get its number plate. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that a person in shock who did not realise he was injured was not required to pursue the vehicle, nor to stand by the road on later evenings or search nearby streets. The appeal was allowed and judgment entered for the agreed amount of damages (unspecified in judgment).
Incident & injury
A block of wood fell from the tray of an unidentified utility/truck into the path of the plaintiff's motorcycle; the rear wheel ran over it, jolting him and causing back and ankle injuries.
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. [2022] QSC 179 set aside.
- Body regions
- Lumbar / thoracic spine, Left ankle
- Diagnoses
- Lumbar disc prolapse with torn nerve sheathing, Left ankle injury
- Incident date
- 11 March 2019
- Location
- Redland Bay Road, near Sevenoaks Street (Redland area, Queensland)
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 28 April 2023
- Claim type
- MAIA
- Proceeding
- Appeal
- Plaintiff outcome
- Successful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- Occupation
- Postal delivery worker (Australia Post) Machinery Operator / Driver
Outcome
The Court of Appeal allowed the postal delivery worker's appeal, holding that he had made 'proper inquiry and search' under s 31(2) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 so as to engage the presumption that the vehicle could not be identified. Judgment was entered for the appellant against the Nominal Defendant for the agreed (but unspecified) quantum, with interest and costs.
Defendant
1 Nominal Defendant
CTP Insurer (unidentified vehicle)
Key issues
Ford v Nominal Defendant [2023] QCA 83
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.