How is Relative Culpability Assessed When one Party Disobeys the Road Rules?

In Brief

• Pursuant to s 3.11 and s 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, Claimant is not entitled to ongoing statutory benefits if they are wholly or mostly at fault for their accident.
• In accidents involving more than one vehicle, an assessment of the Claimant’s contributory negligence calls for an assessment of the relative culpability of the parties.
• Where one party disobeys the road rules, the other party may still contribute to the accident because they should have anticipate that another road user may not obey the road rules.

Facts

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in Singh v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 524 on 17 October 2025.

On 1 June 2022, at approximately 6.30pm, the Claimant proceeded into a multi-lane intersection of the Northern Road and Elizabeth Drive, Luddenham. At the same time, the Insured entered the intersection from the opposite direction and attempted to make a right-hand turn across the Claimant’s path. A collision resulted.

The Insurer denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits on the grounds that the Claimant was wholly or mostly at fault because he entered the intersection against a red light. The Insurer’s liability determination was confirmed on Internal Review and the Claimant lodged a Miscellaneous Assessment matter in the Commission.

The Member’s Findings of Fact

Based on the lay and expert evidence, the Member made the following factual findings:

• The Claimant entered the intersection against a red light.
• The Insured entered the intersection with the benefit of a green arrow.
• The Claimant only became aware of the Insured’s vehicle a moment before the impact.
• The Insured only became aware of the Claimant’s vehicle when he heard and felt the impact.
• Both parties had their headlights illuminated.
• The Claimant was travelling at 80 kph prior to the impact.
• The Insured was travelling at 60 kph prior to the impact.

The Member’s Decision

The Member found that the Claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for the following reasons:

• Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic [2024] NSWSC 1272, in an accident involving two vehicles, the Claimant’s contributory negligence is assessed by reference to the relative culpability of the two drivers.
• In this case, the Claimant’s relative culpability significantly outweighed the Insured’s relative culpability.
• The Claimant contributed to the cause of the accident by entering the intersection against the red traffic light which faced him.
• A reasonable road user in the Claimant’s position, however, must anticipate that not every driver will comply with the road rules and modify their driving accordingly.
• The Insured contributed to the accident by failing to detect, prior to the impact, that the Claimant had entered the intersection.
• A just and equitable apportionment of responsibility would be 80% to the Claimant and 20% to the Insured.

Why This Case is Important 

The decision in Singh applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Evic that assessing contributory negligence, in accidents involving more than one vehicle, requires an assessment of each party’s relative culpability. 

Once the Member made a finding that it was the Claimant – and not the Insured – who entered the intersection against a red light, it was, perhaps, inevitable that the Member would find that the Claimant was wholly or mostly at fault.

It was interesting, however, to see that the Member found that the Insured was partially at fault because he should have anticipated that a road user, such as the Claimant, might disobey the road rules and modify their driving accordingly.

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.

Additional McCabes Resources

• MC PIC Decision of the Week
• MC MAIA Toolkit
• The Proper Lookout Podcast
• MC Ready Reckoner