District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Collins v Insurance Australia Ltd [2021] NSWDC 371 Hearing dates: 20 – 21 July 2021 Date of orders: 02 August 2021 Decision date: 02 August 2021 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 138
Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – motor accidents – plaintiff suffers personal injury in driving her motor vehicle in the course of her attempt to avoid colliding with stationary vehicle on a roadway – vehicle stationary as the result of a traffic jam – traffic jam was a consequence of an earlier traffic collision on the same roadway – earlier traffic collision resulted from an insured driver's negligent driving – plaintiff brings claim against insurer – restrictions on the application of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – whether plaintiff's personal injuries were the result of and caused by a dangerous situation caused by the insured's driving of a vehicle – whether the scope of the insured's duty of care to other motorists on the roadway extended to the plaintiff – identification of the risk of harm – whether risk of harm foreseeable and not insignificant – causation – whether scope of liability element satisfied – whether damages should be reduced because of contributory negligence
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5I, 5K, 5R
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 69, 78
Motor Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 3B, 10, 113
Road Rules 2014 (NSW) r 126
Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Gonzales (2013) 65 MVR 286; [2013] NSWSC 362
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568
Anikin v Sierra (2004) 79 ALJR 452
Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No. 8) (2016) 336 ALR 209
Bayon v Bayon (2014) 69 MVR 360; [2014] NSWCA 434
Benic v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1039
Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138
CFMEU v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd (2013) 248 CLR 619
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Dwyer v Southern [1961] SR(NSW) 896
Evans v Lindsay (2006) 46 MVR 531; [2006] NSWCA 354
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v ICI Australia Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 529
Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549
King v Phillips [1953] 1 QB 429
Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352
Mahony v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Ltd (1985) 156 CLR 522
Manley v Alexander (2005) 80 ALJR 413
McKenna v Hunter & New England…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Collins v Insurance Australia Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 371
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether Collins' injuries were the result of and caused by a dangerous situation arising from the insured's negligent driving. It considered the scope of the insured's duty of care to other motorists, including Collins, and whether the risk of harm was foreseeable and not insignificant. The court assessed whether the scope of liability was satisfied, taking into account the chain of events leading to the accident. Additionally, the court deliberated on whether any contributory negligence on Collins' part warranted a reduction in damages.
After considering the evidence and legal arguments, the court found that Collins' injuries were indeed caused by the dangerous situation created by the insured's negligent driving. The court determined that the scope of the insured's duty of care extended to Collins and that the risk of harm was foreseeable and not insignificant. The court also concluded that the scope of liability was satisfied, and no reduction in damages was warranted due to Collins' contributory negligence. The final orders were made accordingly.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraph 138
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.