Peter Hunt
Consultant
CTP Insurance, Insurance
Injury Sustained on Bus not Sustained in a “Motor Accident”
22 September, 2025
In Brief
- Pursuant to the definition of “motor accident” in section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA), an injury is not sustained in a motor accident unless the injury was “a result of and is caused (whether or not as a result of a defect in the vehicle) during” one of the four examples of “use or operation” listed in the definition.
- The words “caused during” connote a temporal connection between the use or operation of the vehicle and the injury.
- The words “a result of” connote a causal connection between the use or operation of the vehicle and the injury.
- To constitute a “motor accident“, pursuant to the definition in s 1.4, there must be both a temporal connection and a causal connection between the injury and the use or operation of the motor vehicle.
- An injury is not sustained in a “motor accident” if the motor vehicle merely provides the setting for the injury and the way the vehicle is being driven is not a proximate cause of the injury.
Facts
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in Liebert v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 458 on 19 September 2025.
The Claimant suffered a left shoulder injury whilst riding a privately owned and operated bus on 3 April 2025.
The Insurer served a Liability Notice denying liability on the grounds the Claimant was not injured in a motor accident.
The PIC Member made the following factual findings:
- The Claimant’s left arm was hyperextended or stretched whilst he was assisting a female passenger who left her bag on a luggage tray.
- The CCTV demonstrated that the Claimant hurt his left shoulder during this process because it showed the Claimant holding and rubbing his shoulder.
- The CCTV did not reveal any violent braking, harsh braking or sudden stopping.
Relevant Definitions
Section 1.4 of MAIA defines a “motor accident“, as follows:
“…an incident or accident involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle that causes the death of or injury to a person where the death or injury is a result of and is caused (whether or not as a result of a defect in the vehicle) during—
(a) the driving of the vehicle, or
(b) a collision, or action taken to avoid a collision, with the vehicle, or
(c) the vehicle’s running out of control, or
(d) a dangerous situation caused by the driving of the vehicle, a collision or action taken to avoid a collision with the vehicle, or the vehicle’s running out of control.
The Member’s Decision
The Member concluded that the Claimant was not injured in a “motor accident“, for the following reasons:
1. The Claimant was involved in “…an incident or accident involving the use or operation of a motor vehicle…” as required by s 1.4 of MAIA given that he was riding a bus whilst the bus was being used to transport passengers.
2. The High Court held in Allianz Aust v GSF Aust [2005] HCA 26 that the words “ is a result of and is caused…during” involves two elements:
- A temporal connection (ie: “caused during“).
- A causal relationship between the injury and one of the four examples of use or operation in the definition (ie: “a result of“).
3. In other words, there has to be a link between the injury and one of the four examples of “use or operation” in the definition of “motor accident”.
4. In this dispute:
- The bus was being driven normally so there was no connection between the injury and the driving of the bus.
- There was no suggestion of a collision or any evidence of a near miss between the bus and another road user.
- The bus was not running out of control.
- The injury arose from the Claimant helpfully assisting a passenger retrieve an item she had left behind rather than by any dangerous situation caused by the driving of the bus.
5. It follows that the way the bus was being driven was not a proximate cause of the Claimant’s injury and the injury, therefore, was not caused by a “motor accident“, as defined by s 1.4.
Why This Case is Important
Subject to limited exclusions, any person injured in a motor accident in NSW is entitled to statutory benefits for at least 52 weeks.
It is (perhaps) surprising, therefore, how few PIC decisions examine the scope of what constitutes a “motor accident“.
The decision in Liebert is important because it is one of the few decisions which examines how the High Court’s decision in Allianz v GSF applies to the statutory benefits regime in Part 3 of MAIA which doesn’t require a claimant to prove fault by an owner or driver.
The Member in Liebert confirmed that an injury is only sustained in a “motor accident” if the proximate cause of the injury is the driving of the vehicle, a collision (or near collision) with the vehicle, the vehicle’s running out of control or a dangerous situation created by the driving of the vehicle.
A “motor accident” is not the proximate cause of an injury if, as in this dispute, the motor vehicle merely provides the setting for the injury.
If you would like to discuss this case note, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with CTP Practice Group Leader Peter Hunt today.
