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.

Medical hub proposed for new business precinct

A health hub, early learning centre and green space could form the “village heart” of an emerging major business precinct, according to documents lodged More

Bridge rebuild project shortlisted for award

A significant bridge project that restored a key transport link is in the running for a coveted public works engineering award. The Schreibers Road Bridge More

Fans’ chants show faith restored in bulked-up Hipwood

Long a target of the "armchair warriors", Chris Fagan labelled it a sign of trust restored when Eric Hipwood's name echoed around the Gabba. The More

Sami Muirhead: the woes of a third-born child

Who hasn’t forgotten to pick up their child? Well, I did just that and now my third-born has labelled me the worst parent in More

Traffic almost doubles as road duplication advances

A 3.5km road duplication through one of the region’s fastest-growing communities is pushing into its next phases as governments play catch-up on transport infrastructure More

Prime site where distinctive pink home stood up for auction

A prominent site where a conspicuous pink house stood is set to go under the hammer. No.178 Brisbane Road, at a bustling Mooloolaba intersection, will 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