Peter Hunt
Consultant
CTP Insurance, Insurance
Slippery When Wet – Another Driver’s Speed Means They’re Mostly-at-Fault
8 December, 2025
In Brief
- Pursuant to section 3.11 and section 3.28 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, a Claimant is not entitled to ongoing statutory benefits if they are wholly or mostly at fault for their accident.
- In single vehicle motor accidents, assessing the Claimant’s contributory negligence requires an evaluative judgment of the extent to which they departed from the required standard of care.
Facts
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in Salazar Renteria v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWPIC 623 on 5 December 2025.
On 14 August 2024, the Claimant was riding her motorcycle in Hurstville. She lost control of her motorcycle, on the wet road, whilst turning left from King Georges Road onto Hurstville Road. She argued that the accident was solely caused by the wet conditions rather than any want of care on her part.
The Insurer determined that the Claimant was not entitled to ongoing statutory benefits, beyond 52 weeks, because she was wholly or mostly at fault for her accident.
The Insurer’s determination was confirmed on internal review and the Claimant lodged a miscellaneous assessment in the Commission to resolve the most-at-fault dispute between the parties.
The Member’s Decision
The Member found that the Claimant was wholly or mostly at fault for the following reasons:
The Claimant’s Speed
The Claimant was riding at 60 kph in a 50 zone in wet conditions. She slowed to 25 kph in order to make the left hand turn into Hurstville Road. An inference can be drawn that a wet road can be slippery and that the presence of water on the road requires a driver or a motorcycle rider to pay additional attention to how they control their vehicle and to reduce their speed. The Claimant’s speed was too high given the wet road, the downhill slope and the sharp ninety-degree corner. By commencing the turn at 25 kph, the Claimant failed to exercise reasonable care.
The Claimant’s Control
After losing balance, the Claimant failed to appropriately apply the brakes of her motorcycle and, instead, steered to the right, causing the motorcycle to fall to the right-hand side.
The Claimant’s Contributory Negligence
The Claimant’s contributory negligence should be assessed by reference to the degree she departed from the required standard of care. On that basis, the Claimant’s contributory negligence was 70%
Why This Case is Important
The decision in Renteria illustrates, once again, how contributory negligence is assessed where the Claimant is the only party involved in the accident.
As established by the Supreme Court in Evic, in single vehicle accidents, the concept of relative culpability does not apply because there is no relative culpability to compare. Instead, contributory negligence is assessed by measuring the extent to which the Claimant’s driving behaviour departed from the standard of care required of them to protect their own safety.
Our Case Note on Evic can be found here.
To explore other claims where PIC Members have applied Evic:
- Evic Applied – Assessing Contributory Negligence in Single Vehicle Accidents
- Evic Rides Again – Driver in Single Vehicle Accident Not Mostly at Fault
- Slippery When Wet – When an Unsafe Speed Means You’re Livin’ on a Prayer
- Bicyclist Found Wholly at Fault
- Evic Applied – How to Assess Contributory Negligence in a Chain Collision
- How is Relative Culpability Assessed When one Party Disobeys the Road Rules?
- How Most at Fault Disputes are Assessed When the Insured is Not at Fault
Interestingly, in assessing the Claimant’s contributory negligence at 70%, the Member’s decision mirrored that of a prior most-at-fault dispute involving a driver losing control in wet conditions: Mellor-Langham v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 194.
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.
