Bikelawyer wins important high court liability trial for biker seriously injured by hamburger van owner

In a pivotal High Court ruling, specialist firm Bikelawyer successfully secured compensation for a motorcyclist who suffered life-changing injuries after a collision with the owner of a roadside hamburger van. The case hinged on whether the incident fell within the scope of motor insurance coverage under section 145(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Incident Overview

The tragic accident occurred when Mr Woodward, who regularly operated a mobile burger business from a layby, crossed the road after adjusting a promotional sign placed opposite his van. As he stepped back into the carriageway, he was struck by a motorcyclist travelling at 50mph. The rider had no opportunity to avoid the collision.

Mr Woodward was killed instantly. The motorcyclist survived but sustained life-changing injuries. With no public liability insurance and no financial assets in Mr Woodward’s estate, the injured rider sought damages from Mr Woodward’s motor insurer.

Legal Question

The central issue before the court was whether the accident could be said to have “arisen out of the use of a vehicle on a road,” as required by section 145(3) of the Road Traffic Act. This provision mandates that motor insurance must cover injuries linked to the use of a vehicle in public spaces.

The case drew parallels with Dunthorne v Bentley (1998), where a driver seeking petrol after her car broke down was struck while crossing the road. The court in that case found the accident was sufficiently connected to the use of the vehicle.

Other influential rulings, including Government Insurance Office (NSW) v RJ Green & Lloyd Pty Ltd and Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav DD, have emphasized that the nature and function of the vehicle must be considered when assessing liability.

Arguments and Outcome

Bikelawyer argued that Mr Woodward’s actions in adjusting the sign and returning to the van were directly tied to his use of the vehicle as a mobile food outlet. The insurer countered that the van was stationary and being used for commercial purposes, and that the sign activity was unrelated to driving or vehicle operation.

The court acknowledged the complexity of the arguments but ultimately sided with the Claimant. It concluded that the van’s use as a hamburger business was central to the incident, and that Mr Woodward’s movement across the road was part of that use. As such, the accident was deemed to have arisen out of the use of the vehicle, triggering insurance liability.