Assessing Relative Culpability in Multi-Vehicle Accidents

In Brief

• Pursuant to s 3.11 and s 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA), a claimant is not entitled to ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks, if their contributory negligence exceeds 61%.
• In multi-vehicle accidents, contributory negligence is assessed by comparing the relative culpability of all drivers involved in the accident.

Facts

The decision in Solomon v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2026] NSWPIC 150 was delivered on 4 March 2026 and published on 20 March 2026.

The Claimant was riding his motorcycle on Fosterton Road, in Fosterton, on 7 December 2023 when he was involved in a motor accident.

The Claimant was riding behind a Toyota Hilux towing a trailer (Vehicle B). An unidentified vehicle (Vehicle C) was travelling in the opposite direction.

The driver of Vehicle C swerved onto the wrong side of the road to avoid a goanna before continuing on their journey, without stopping.

The driver of Vehicle B stopped in order to avoid a collision with Vehicle C. The Claimant rode his motorcycle into the rear of Vehicle B.

The Member found, on the evidence, that:

• Vehicle C would have collided with Vehicle B if the driver of Vehicle B had not slowed his vehicle and come to a halt.
• The driver of Vehicle B had time to come to a complete stop, put his vehicle in park, activate his hazard lights and open the door of his vehicle before the Claimant’s motorcycle collided with the rear of his vehicle.
• The Claimant was travelling between 30 and 40 metres behind Vehicle B at approximately 40 kph.

The Member’s Decision

The Member confirmed that they had to consider the relative culpability of all the drivers involved in the accident in order to assess the Claimant’s contribution to the accident.

The Member found that the Claimant was not wholly or mostly at fault for the following reasons:

• The Claimant contributed to the accident by failing to maintain a safe distance, failing to keep a proper lookout and by failing to take evasive action.
• The driver of Vehicle C contributed to the accident by failing to apply the brakes of their vehicle and remaining in their lane, rather than swerving into oncoming traffic, when they saw the goanna on the road ahead of them.
• The driver of Vehicle B contributed to the accident by failing to move their vehicle off the road before stopping, rather than stopping in the Claimant’s path.
• Weighing up the comparison of culpability, the Claimant’s departure from the required standard of care warrants a finding of 60% contributory negligence.

Why This Case is Important

The decision in Solomon provides an example of how the Claimant’s contribution to an accident is assessed in multi-vehicle accidents.

The Member applied the decision of AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic [2024] NSWSC 1272 and looked at each parties contribution to the cause of the accident. The Member proceeded to find the Claimant 60% responsible without attaching a percentage to the contribution made by Vehicle B and Vehicle C.

Compare that approach to the approach taken in Freitas v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 475 which involved a three-vehicle chain collision. In that matter, a different Member looked at each driver’s want of care and attached a percentage contribution to each party.

Our full Case Note in Freitas can be accessed here.