Background

The Plaintiff was struck by a car whilst cycling with a group of cyclists and suffered serious injuries to his pelvis, bilateral glutes and hamstrings. After a period of rehabilitation, he returned to work and completed a Masters Degree. He also resumed cycling and other sporting activities. He was also able to compete in a triathlon albeit in pain.

Despite returning to most of his sporting and recreational activities, his injuries restricted him from performing to the elite level he once did prior to his transport accident. Whilst he performed a large number of his pre-accident activities, he did so with a considerable amount of pain.

The Transport Accident Commission (“TAC”) denied The Plaintiff’s application for a Serious Injury Certificate, arguing that the consequences of the injury did not meet the threshold.

We advised The Plaintiff that he should fight TAC’s decision and issue proceedings at the County Court. The Plantiff has always impressed us as a stoic individual who was determined to live a normal life. Partaking in these activities was important for his mental health.

Legal Test

The issue for the Court’s determination was whether The Plaintiff’s consequences from the transport accident met the serious injury threshold – namely, whether they could be described as being at least very considerable, and more than significant or marked, when compared with other cases.

Defendant’s Argument

The TAC argued that The Plaintiff was a high functioning individual prior to his accident, and after, evidenced by his employment in leadership role, completion of a Masters degree and significant athletic training regime while working full time.

Plaintiff’s Argument

Our TAC claim lawyers argued that The Plaintiff was in constant pain when he sits and that sitting was part and parcel of life, and despite engaging in various social and recreational activities, this was to a lesser extent than prior to the accident, and done in serious pain as they formed part of his identity.

Judgement

The Court found that The Plaintiff consequences did indeed satisfy the threshold, grating him leave to seek common law damages. The Court held that a stoic applicant who has been prepared to put up with pain and make the best of their situation, should not be treated less favourably than one who simply resigns themselves to their injuries.