Corner Marker Mostly at Fault on Motorcycle Club Run

In Brief

• In most-at-fault disputes, where the accident involves multiple vehicles, the Claimant’s contributory negligence is normally assessed by reference to the relative culpability of each participant.
• Where, however, the Claimant is the only culpable party, contributory negligence is measured, akin to single vehicle accidents, by reference to their departure from the required standard of care.
• A motorcyclist is required to comply with the Road Rules and can not assume that other participants in a motorcycle club ride will comply with the club rules for the event.

Background

The decision in Hernandez-Taylor v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2026] NSWPIC 208  was delivered on 10 April 2026 and published on 1 May 2026.

The Claimant was injured in a motorbike accident on 19 May 2024 whilst participating in a Ducati Owners Club Ride.

The accident occurred whilst the Claimant was performing the role of Corner Marker. In that role, the Claimant was required to guide her fellow riders by sitting stationary in advance of a curve in the road with her indicator blinking. After completing her role, the Claimant pulled back onto the road and collided with a fellow rider’s motorbike.

The Insurer denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks, on the grounds that the Claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for their accident.

The Insurer’s liability determination was confirmed on internal review.

The Claimant lodged a Miscellaneous Assessment application in the Commission to resolve the dispute.

Findings of Fact

The Member made the following findings of fact:

• The Claimant was fulfilling the role of “Corner Marker” during the ride.
• Two other key participants in the ride were the Ride Leader and the Tail End Charlie.
• Prior to the accident in question, the Tail End Charlie had – contrary to his role – ridden past the Claimant when she was performing her Corner Marker duties.
• At the Arcadia Road intersection, the Ride Leader pointed to where he wanted the Claimant, as Corner Marker, to be positioned on the side of the road.
• The Claimant pulled over to a position about five metres before the curve. Her right-hand indicator was on at all times to direct the riders who followed her.
• The Claimant’s position was ahead of the point indicated by the Rider Leader.
• The Tail End Charlie flashed his lights at least twice as he approached the Claimant’s stationary position on the left of the road.
• The Tail End Charlie continued riding but likely slowed down as he approached the corner.
• The Claimant looked in her mirror and saw the Tail End Charlie approaching.
• The Claimant did not wave or provide any other right-hand signal as the Tail End Charlie approached.
• The Claimant did not look before she pulled out on the road.
• The Tail End Charlie was riding at about 20 kph as he approached the corner.
• The Claimant pulled out in front of the Tail End Charlie.

The Member’s Decision

The Member found that the Claimant departed from the required standard of care for the following reasons:

• The Claimant was on notice that the Tail End Charlie was not on the same page as her regarding the roles of the Corner Marker and the Tail End Charlie.
• A reasonable person in the Claimant’s position would not have relied solely on her mirrors. A reasonable person would have turned to look behind her to evaluate whether it was safe to pull out onto the road.
• A reasonable person in the Claimant’s position would have waved or otherwise indicated that she was going to pull out.
• The Claimant was not entitled, as she argued, to rely on the Club Rules, which assume that the Tail End Charlie will maintain their position as the last rider in the group.
• The Claimant was required to adhere to the Road Rules.

The Member found that the Tail End Charlie did not depart from the required standard of care for the following reasons:

• In addition to negotiating the bend in the road, the Tail End Charlie had to monitor whether vehicles coming in the opposite direction might make a right-hand turn, across his path, into a side street.
• Given that the Claimant, as Corner Marker, was required to activate her right-hand indicator to guide fellow riders, the Tail End Charlie could not take this as an indication that she was about to pull out onto the road.
• The Claimant did not give the Tail End Charlie any other signal to indicate her intention to pull out onto the road.
• By parking closer to the bend than the Ride Leader indicated, the Claimant deprived the Tail End Charlie the time and distance to take evasive action.

Having found that the Claimant was the only culpable party, the Member concluded that contributory negligence could not be measured by reference to the relative culpability of the parties.

Instead, the Member applied the method applicable to single vehicle accidents; namely, whether the extent to which the Claimant’s riding departed from the required standard of care.

The Member concluded that the degree of the Claimant’s departure was at least 80%.

Why This Case is Important

The decision in Hernandez-Taylor is interesting for two reasons.

Firstly, it provides another example where a PIC Member has applied AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic [2024] NSWSC 1272 and treated a multi-vehicle accident as a single vehicle accident because the Claimant was the only party at fault. Prior to Evic, if the Claimant was the only party at fault, a finding of 100% contributory negligence could be expected. Post-Evic, however, where the Claimant is the only party at fault, contributory negligence is measured by their departure from the required standard of care. The concept of relative culpability only applies where more than one party was at fault (as distinct from merely involved).

Secondly, the Member concluded that the Road Rules continue to apply even if there is a private understanding between the road-users – for example, via motorcycle club rules of etiquette – about how they might use the road. In this instance, the Club Rules assumed that the Tail End Charlie would always ride at the rear of the pack. That understanding, however, did not displace the Claimant’s obligation to check that there was time and space to pull out onto the road ahead of the Tail End Charlie’s motorcycle.