A young boy riding on a bike with his mother was hit by a public bus and had his foot amputated. Liability was admitted, and the issue became under which scheme damages arose. Was this a ‘motor vehicle accident’7 (less damages) or a ‘public transport accident’8 (more damages)? On the basis a ‘bus’ is a ‘motor vehicle’, it was argued the former applied.
Multiple statutes were relevant; Bell CJ regretted there was no simple answer; and Griffiths AJA called for reform9. The case turned on one ‘critical provision’10. Various factors favoured this being a ‘public transport accident’. Parliament also wanted a regime without the need to prove driver fault.
This principle is from Episode 118 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
7 s 4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW).
8 Ch 5 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW).
9 Bell CJ [1], Griffiths AJA [71-72] ‘naivety’ that things would be ‘clear …’
10 s 121(1) of the Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW).