Hyland v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 482 (16 September 2025)
In this case, the Personal Injury Commission considered whether motorcyclist David Hyland (David) was wholly or mostly at fault for an off-road crash that caused him serious injuries. The decision also clarifies how contributory negligence is assessed under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW).
Background
On 24 August 2024 at 12.30pm, David was riding his motorcycle along Horseshoe Road (a dirt road near Kalang) with two friends, Christopher Shervey and Alan Wilson, during an adventure bike event. Christopher led, Alan followed, and David rode behind the both of them. The speed limit for this section of Horseshoe Road was 50km/h.
As they travelled at around 50-60km/h, Alan rode over a fallen tree lying across the road. The log bounced upwards, leaving David only metres behind with little time to react. His front wheel struck the airborne log, throwing him from his motorcycle and causing serious injuries including leg and shoulder fractures.
The insurer, Allianz Australia, accepted liability for the accident for the first 52 weeks, but then decided that David was wholly or mostly at fault. Under sections 3.11 and 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, this would have ended his entitlement to statutory benefits after 52 weeks and would have prevented him from obtaining common law damages.
David disputed the insurer’s decision and applied to the Personal Injury Commission for review.
Issues in Dispute
The Commission had to decide:
- Was the accident wholly or mostly caused by David?
- If not, what level of contributory negligence applied?
The insurer argued that David was travelling too fast and too close to Alan, preventing him from avoiding the hazard. It said both other riders had managed to cross the log safely and that David’s inexperience with the terrain meant he failed to ride to the conditions.
David maintained he was riding safely within the limit and keeping a reasonable distance. He argued that the log only became dangerous when Alan’s motorcycle caused it to bounce into the air; therefore, it was Alan’s conduct in driving over the log that he considered negligent. He said the accident was unavoidable and not due to any recklessness on his part.
The Commission’s Findings
Member David Ford found that:
- David was not wholly or mostly at fault for the accident.
- The log was dislodged by Alan’s motorcycle and bounced upward, leaving David little opportunity to avoid impact.
- Although David was travelling slightly too close to the rider ahead and at an excessive speed (noting the condition of the road, limited visibility and the possibility of fallen debris due to recent storm activity), these factors only contributed partially to the accident.
The Commission assessed contributory negligence at 25%, meaning David’s conduct played a role but did not bar his entitlement to ongoing statutory benefits.
As the degree of contributory negligence was below 61%, the accident was not “mostly” caused by his fault under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
David was therefore entitled to continue receiving statutory benefits beyond 52 weeks and to lodge a claim for common law damages. The insurer was also ordered to pay his legal costs at the maximum regulated rate.
Key Takeaways
- Wholly or mostly at fault decisions under ss 3.11 and 3.28 of the MAI Act depend on how much the injured person’s actions contributed to the accident, not whether another driver was negligent.
- Contributory negligence below 61% means the injured person remains entitled to statutory benefits beyond 52 weeks
- Even in recreational or off-road riding situations, the Commission will look closely at the specific chain of events to determine who or what actually caused the crash.
This case highlights that insurers must carefully consider all surrounding circumstances — including the actions of other riders and environmental hazards — in determining fault.
DISCLAIMER
This article reflects the current law at the time of publication. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The actual decisions in each case are summarised for general understanding. For specific legal guidance in relation to your situation, please consult with a qualified legal professional.