Earle-Joyce v AAI Limited t/as AAMI - [2024] NSWPIC 626

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Earle-Joyce v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2024] NSWPIC 626
CLAIMANT:	Brandon Earle-Joyce
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as AAMI
SENIOR MEMBER:	Brett Williams
DATE OF DECISION:	8 November 2024
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; whether accident caused wholly or mostly by the fault of the claimant for the purposes of sections 3.11 and 3.28; where claimant’s vehicle crossed from the southbound lane to the northbound lane while navigating a sweeping left hand corner, left the road and collided with a tree; where claimant had no recollection of the accident and there were no witnesses; insurer relied on res ipsa loquitur to support an inference that the accident was caused by the claimant’s fault; AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic; Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA v Richards; Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd; Piening v Wanless; Anchor Products Limited v Hedges; Davis v Swift; Vairy v Wyong Shire Council; Manley v Alexander; Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond; Taitoko v R; Herne Investments (NSW) Pty Ltd v Don Watson Pty Ltd; Held – res ipsa loquitor arose for consideration; what occurred was sufficiently unusual to raise a probability that the course of the claimant’s vehicle was to be accounted for by some failure to exercise reasonable care; inference drawn that the accident was caused by the claimant’s failure to exercise reasonable skill and care in the driving of his vehicle; contributory negligence assessed at 60%; for the purposes of sections 3.11 and 3.28 the accident was not caused wholly by the fault of the claimant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE 1. For the purposes of s 3.11 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 the motor accident on 16 April 2023 was not caused wholly or mostly by the fault of Mr Earle-Joyce. 2. For the purposes of s 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 the motor accident on 16 April 2023 was not caused wholly or mostly by the fault of Mr Earle-Joyce.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Brandon Earle-Joyce was injured in a motor accident at Yarramundi on 16 April 2023 (accident), and has made a claim for statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) on AAI Limited t/as AAMI (insurer).
On 8 February 2024, the insurer denied liability for the claim after 14 April 2024, having determined that, for the purposes of ss 3.11 and 3.28 of the MAI Act, the accident was caused wholly by Mr Earle-Joyce’s fault. The liability notice states that the insurer relied on Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA v Richards [2023] NSWSC 909 (Richards), and that it had inferred negligence on Mr Earle-Joyce’s part. The insurer determined that in the ordinary course of events a vehicle would not veer off the road and collide with a tree without negligence on the part of the driver.
Mr Earle-Joyce sought an internal review of the insurer’s decision. On 1 March 2024…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Earle-Joyce v AAI Limited t/as AAMI 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWPIC 626
Decision Date: 8 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Earle-Joyce v AAI Limited t/as AAMI, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The defendant, AAI Limited t/as AAMI, contested liability, asserting that the accident was caused wholly or mostly by the plaintiff's fault. The incident involved the plaintiff's vehicle crossing from the southbound lane to the northbound lane while navigating a sweeping left-hand corner, subsequently leaving the road and colliding with a tree. The plaintiff had no recollection of the accident, and there were no witnesses to the event.

The court was required to determine whether the accident was caused wholly or mostly by the plaintiff's fault, as defined by sections 3.11 and 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The primary legal issue was whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could be applied to infer that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care. The court considered the absence of recollection and the lack of witnesses, alongside the unusual nature of the vehicle's trajectory, to assess the probability of contributory negligence.

The court found that the circumstances of the accident were sufficiently unusual to warrant the application of res ipsa loquitur. It concluded that the unusual course of the plaintiff's vehicle could likely be attributed to a failure to exercise reasonable care. Consequently, the court inferred that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable skill and care in driving. The plaintiff's contributory negligence was assessed at 60%. Given this assessment, the court determined that the accident was not caused wholly by the plaintiff's fault, under sections 3.11 and 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly detailed in the text, but the determination that the accident was not wholly caused by the plaintiff's fault would likely lead to an assessment of the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation, adjusted for the 60% contributory negligence.

Orders