A Queensland court awarded a sparky almost $990,000 after he was struck from behind while walking on the side of the road. Here's what the court decided, and what it means for you.
Understanding how courts decide fault in road accident cases can help you know where you stand after an injury.
The plaintiff had been drinking and was walking along the side of the road towards a friend's business when a car struck him from behind. He was carrying beers in a white plastic bag and wearing clothing with white on it. Two nature strips were available on either side of the road, but he was walking on the road itself.
The driver claimed he didn't see the plaintiff until he was just 10 metres away, making it impossible to avoid the collision. He argued the plaintiff was negligent for walking on the road instead of the footpath.
The plaintiff sustained multiple injuries. The dominant injury was a fracture and dislocation of his left shoulder, requiring surgery. He was a licensed electrician working in the mines, but was left unable to perform heavy mine work or above-shoulder work after the accident.
Read the full judgment on Queensland CourtsThe Supreme Court found that because the road was straight and visibility was good, and because the plaintiff's clothing had reflective white elements, he would have been visible to the driver from at least 80 metres away. The driver had plenty of time to see him and take action. Failing to do so was negligence.
On the question of whether the plaintiff was partly at fault for walking on the road, the court said no. The nature strips on either side were not safe to use. Walking on the road was a reasonable choice in the circumstances, and being hit from behind meant there was no question of him failing to keep a lookout.
The damages were substantial because the accident effectively ended the plaintiff's career in heavy mine electrical work. He could only perform light electrical work going forward, representing a significant loss of future earning capacity.
The court found the plaintiff was visible from 80 metres away. Claiming he wasn't seen until 10 metres simply didn't stack up on a straight road in good visibility. A driver who fails to keep a proper lookout is liable for the consequences.
The nature strips were not safely usable. Walking on the road was a reasonable response to the available options, and the court rejected any finding of contributory negligence against the plaintiff.
Because the accident effectively ended the plaintiff's ability to do high-value mine work, the court awarded significant compensation for future loss of earning capacity. These awards can be substantial when the injury changes a person's career trajectory.
This case reinforces some important principles in Queensland personal injury law that could affect your claim.
You don't have to have been on a designated footpath for a driver to owe you a duty of care. If the circumstances made it reasonable to walk where you were, that matters.
If you were struck from behind, questions about whether you were keeping a lookout generally don't apply to you. The responsibility to see you in time sits with the driver.
Courts look at what work you could do before and what you can do after. If your injury closes off a more demanding, better-paid career, that loss is compensable.
Defendants will often try to argue you were partly at fault. Courts assess this carefully. Having a good explanation for what you were doing, and why, genuinely matters.
One conversation. No pressure. Tell us a bit about your situation and we'll be in touch.