In a recent court case, the Nominal Defendant successfully defended a claim alleging injury by an unregistered dirt bike during an incident in July 2017. The case was heard in October 2024 at the Cairns District Court, presided over by Judge Treviño KC DCJ.
The plaintiff claimed to have been injured while standing near his home when he was hit by a dirt bike. Following a robust investigation, the Nominal Defendant argued the plaintiff incurred the injury as a result of intentionally extending his arm into the oncoming path of the dirt bike as it attempted to ride past him.
Despite the dirt bike rider previously being convicted for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing grievous bodily harm to the plaintiff, the Nominal Defendant was tasked with proving that the rider did not dangerously operate the dirt bike or that his operation did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
The plaintiff had previously told his partner that he had deliberately ‘clotheslined’ the rider by extending his right arm and knocking the rider off the bike. This was contradicted by his claim at trial that he assumed a ‘protective clothesline’ position, with his forearms out in front of his body, to shield himself from the oncoming bike.
Discrepancies between the plaintiff’s account at the criminal trial of the dirt bike rider and his account at this trial were highlighted. Notably, there was no mention of the ‘protective clothesline’ at the criminal trial.
The Nominal Defendant further argued that the plaintiff’s definition of ‘clothesline’ or ‘coat hanger’ as a self-protective action was inconsistent with the common understanding of these terms, which typically refers to an aggressive action in sports where contact is made with a player’s head or neck by a swinging arm outstretched to the side of the other player.
The Nominal Defendant also questioned the plaintiff’s claim that the dirt bike was travelling at 60km/h and hit him, causing injury only to his right arm. Hospital records confirmed that he had no other injuries, which supports the Nominal Defendant’s version of events.
Taking into account all the evidence, including the plaintiff’s statements to his partner, the accounts of the dirt bike rider and his passenger, and the clinical notes, the Nominal Defendant successfully rebutted the presumption that the rider’s dangerous operation of the dirt bike caused the plaintiff’s injury.
As a result, the Nominal Defendant’s efforts led to the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case due to a lack of liability.
The Nominal Defendant in Queensland, funded by a levy included in motor vehicle registration fees, provides compensation for victims of negligent driving involving unidentified or uninsured vehicles. When the Nominal Defendant successfully rebuts claims it maintains financial sustainability, helping to prevent increases in the levy that could impact vehicle owners. It also helps to deter fraudulent claims, ensuring that funds are available for genuine victims. Additionally, the rigorous scrutiny of claims can encourage more responsible driving behaviour, contributing to safer road conditions. The aim is not to reject all claims, but to ensure that valid claims are paid, balancing the needs of accident victims with the broader interests of Queensland’s public.