When you’re involved in a motor accident, the road to recovery is often long and winding. Recovery or stabilisation is often hindered by the stress of navigating a complex and overwhelming legal framework. The recent case of Bamblett v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2024] NSWPIC 402 highlights the complexities that can arise when determining fault in motor accidents.
In this case, Jay Bamblett, a motorcyclist, found himself at odds with Allianz Australia after an accident that left him injured. The core of the dispute revolved around who was at fault and to what extent. While Allianz admitted that their insured driver had breached their duty of care to Mr Bamblett, they argued that Mr Bamblett was 80% responsible for the accident. If such a decision stood unchallenged, this would result in any damages that Mr Bamblett recovered being reduced by 80% for his alleged contributory negligence. Naturally unhappy with this assessment, Mr Bamblett sought a review of the decision.
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) was tasked with untangling the conflicting versions of events. On 30 November 2023, at 3:30pm, Mr Bamblett was riding his motorcycle in the right-hand lane of Bridges Road, New Lambton. As he approached the intersection of Bridges Road and Sketchley Parade, a vehicle in front of Mr Bamblett slowed to a stop as the traffic light had just turned orange. Mr Bamblett was concerned that he would not be able to stop in time and therefore moved into the left-hand lane and went to drive straight through the intersection. However, the insured driver, Mr Aydan Eyles, was in a vehicle travelling the opposite way on Bridges Road and, not seeing Mr Bamblett behind the stationary vehicle, took a right-hand turn at the intersection onto Sketchley Parade. As each driver did not see the other, the two vehicles collided in the middle of the intersection.
Mr Bamblett claimed he was not mostly at fault, pointing to the actions of the insured driver who made a right-hand turn across his path. However, the insurer countered by arguing that Mr Bamblett contributed significantly to the accident by attempting to pass through the intersection during an orange light and without adequate visibility of other vehicles on the road, ultimately putting himself in a dangerous situation.
During the assessment conference, various pieces of evidence, including video footage and witness statements, were considered. A critical point of contention was whether the insured driver had entered the intersection while the light was still green, which would have required him to complete the turn to avoid blocking traffic. However, the evidence suggested that the driver had not moved into the intersection before the light turned orange.
The PIC ultimately found that Mr Bamblett was not wholly or mostly at fault for the accident. However, it also recognised that his actions—choosing to continue through the intersection despite the orange light and the presence of an obstructing vehicle—contributed to the accident. As a result, Bamblett was found to be 50% contributorily negligent.
This case underscores the importance of understanding your rights and the legal intricacies involved in motor accident claims. Even when you’re not wholly at fault, contributory negligence can significantly impact the outcome of your claim and operate to reduce the compensation available to you. If you’re involved in an accident, it’s crucial to seek professional legal advice to navigate the complex road ahead.
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.
