100% Locally Owned, Independent and Free

100% Locally Owned, Independent and Free

Insurance claim rejected after court finds no proof of unidentified car

Do you have a news tip? Click here to send to our news team.

Police issue 200 fines in seven-day beach blitz

Police have clamped down on drivers along a popular beach strip north of the Sunshine Coast, handing out scores of fines in the space More

‘Back to School Boost’ to help ease costs for families

Financial assistance is on the way to more than 26,000 Sunshine Coast students to help cover school expenses in 2026. Every primary school-aged child across More

Photo of the day: thirsty ‘bloke’

Photographer Jon Harry was jogging along Mooloolaba Spit and saw this little 'bloke' having a drink at the pet water trough. Sparing a thought More

Houseboat owner sells vessel for $1 under new river rules

A Noosa River houseboat owner has sold his $150,000 vessel for just $1 after new Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) rules and a removal order More

Residents of booming suburb call for junction action

Locals within one of the Sunshine Coast’s fastest-growing areas are appealing for “urgently needed” safety measures at a major intersection after several “close calls”. More More

Rare piece of Coast history for sale

A Buderim homestead believed to be the oldest residence on the Sunshine Coast still being lived in has hit the market, offering a rare More

A driver who claimed to have suffered injuries in a crash caused by an unidentified car on the Bruce Highway has had his insurance claim dismissed by a court.

In a District Court decision delivered in June but not published until December, Judge Suzanne Sheridan found the driver had failed to prove that another vehicle caused his crash near Sippy Downs in April 2017.

“Early on the morning of April 3, the plaintiff was the driver of a Nissan vehicle and was travelling north in the left lane on the Bruce Highway at Sippy Downs near the Frizzo Road on-ramp,” the judgement stated.

“His vehicle veered off the highway to the left side and onto the grass and collided with a concrete culvert and rolled.

“He alleges that an unidentified white car overtook him and then veered back into his lane and suddenly braked. He alleges that the sudden braking of the unidentified vehicle caused him to brake and his Nissan to swerve to the right, which he then overcorrected, lost control and veered off the road.

“He alleges the unidentified vehicle left the scene and has not been able to be identified.

“He alleges that as a result of the negligence of the driver of the unidentified vehicle, he suffered soft tissue injuries to the cervical spine, lumbar spine and left lower leg, a left elbow injury, abdominal and chest wall bruising and post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive episode and a relapse of a pre-existing stimulant use disorder.”

The driver brought his claim against the Nominal Defendant, which acts as the insurer of unidentified vehicles under Queensland’s compulsory third-party scheme.

But the judge found significant problems with the driver’s evidence, particularly concerning his credibility.

Evidence from a truck driver who stopped at the scene and a traffic management worker who arrived shortly afterwards was also found to be vague and inconclusive, with neither witness seeing another vehicle cause the crash.

Help us deliver more news by registering for our FREE daily news feed. All it requires is your email at the bottom of this article.

There was also evidence suggesting the driver – who was returning to his home in Noosaville after helping a friend at Beerwah move furniture – may have told a first responder he had fallen asleep at the wheel.

After the accident the driver was taken by ambulance to Sunshine Coast University Hospital with the discharge notes stating “MVA (motor vehicle accident) with nil significant trauma”.

The judge also noted medical records showed the driver had reported longstanding medical issues more than eight months before the crash, contradicting his claim that he was symptom-free beforehand.

“It is very difficult to base any kind of assessment of pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life, on the basis of this evidence,” she said.

Ultimately, Judge Sheridan ruled she was unable to find, on the balance of probabilities, that an unidentified vehicle caused the accident.

“Collectively, the inconsistencies in the evidence mean that I am unable to rely on anything that (the driver) says about the collision or his circumstances generally,” the judge said.

The driver was claiming general damages, past special damages, future expenses, economic loss and domestic services.

“As things stand, I cannot be satisfied what expenses relate to the collision and what amount I should be prepared to order the Nominal Defendant to pay,” Judge Sheridan ruled.

Subscribe to SCN’s free daily news email

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
This field is hidden when viewing the form
[scn_go_back_button] Return Home
Share