Jury Verdict
On 15 May 2023 a Supreme Court Jury awarded a significant lump sum to a young cyclist who sustained serious injuries in a hit and run.
Maxiom’s Sach Fernando represented the Plaintiff together with Counsel, Jonathan Brett KC and Andrew Dimsey.
The trial commenced on 9 May 2023 at the Supreme Court of Victoria and was heard before His Honour Justice McDonald and a panel of six jurors.
Background
On the morning of 21 March 2018, the Plaintiff was riding her BMX bicycle to the train station, when a car struck the wheel of her bicycle, causing her to fall into a ditch and sustain serious spinal injuries.
The Plaintiff gave evidence that she saw the car when she was in the ditch and from her recollection, it was similar to a red colour. She screamed for the car to stop however, it did not. She immediately telephoned her husband and said “somebody knocked me, please ask someone to come and help me.” Her husband gave evidence of this phone call, namely that the Plaintiff said that a “car had struck me, I need help”. Three others attended the scene of the accident and gave evidence that the Plaintiff informed them that a car had struck her bike and drove off.
The Plaintiff’s claim for compensation was accepted by the Transport Accident Commission, the Defendant in these proceedings.
The Plaintiff was granted a Serious Injury Certificate, however the Defendant firmly maintained that a vehicle was not involved in the accident.
The Defendant’s Case
The Transport Accident Commission was the Defendant in these proceedings. They had accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation in 2018 and had made payments of compensation, medical expense and a lump sum impairment benefit.
Despite this, the Defendant’s case in the running of this trial was that the Plaintiff was mistaken about a car hitting the rear wheel of her bicycle due to a lack of objective evidence, namely that there was no damage to the bicycle or helmet.
Counsel for the Defendant put to the Jury that if a vehicle travelling at any speed at all hits the back of a bicycle, it would leave a mark on the wheel. He submitted that the Plaintiff may have veered too far to get out of the way of the car behind her, and pulled off too far, resulting in her falling into a ditch.
The Defendant submitted that there were inconsistencies in the contemporaneous hospital notes which casted doubt over the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the accident. A hospital note suggested that it was unclear as to whether the plaintiff was struck or spooked by a car.
It should be noted that, at the time this entry was noted, the Plaintiff had suffered a mild traumatic brain injury following a traumatic car accident, and in addition, English was her second language.
The Defendant did not submit that the Plaintiff was an untruthful witness.
The Plaintiff’s Case
Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff had been completely clear that her bicycle had been hit by a car, and that she maintained throughout her evidence that she does not know why there was no damage.
Counsel put to the jury that the Plaintiff could not be mistaken as to the accident in circumstances where she rang her husband immediately and told him that her bike was hit by a car. In addition, she told the first responders that her bike had been hit by a car, and that the car did not stop.
Judges Charge to the Jury
His Honour directed the Jury, inter alia, to take into consideration that the Defendant’s acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation, was indeed an admission that another vehicle was involved in the accident. Notwithstanding the payments made to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, His Honour informed the Jury that they could reach the conclusion that a motor vehicle was not involved.
He further directed the Jury that the evidence of the Plaintiff and her husband regarding the conversation immediately after the accident was not challenged. Therefore, this was evidence as to the truth of the representation that the Plaintiff was in fact struck by a car.
Verdict
The Jury was asked to determine the following questions:
- Was an unidentified vehicle involved in the plaintiff’s accident?
- If yes, was there negligence on the part of the driver of the unidentified vehicle which was a cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries?
The Jury unanimously concluded that an unidentified vehicle was involved in the Plaintiff’s accident and that it was indeed the negligence of the unidentified driver which caused her injuries.
If you have suffered injuries as a result of a road accident, call us today. Our team of expert road injury compensation lawyers can help you pursue a lump sum claim.
