Keywords
Appeal – interpretation s.3 Transport Accident Act 1986 – whether incident was not directly caused by applicant’s driving of motor vehicle.
Facts
The Applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of TAC where he alleged that he sustained sensory neural hearing loss when an alarm attached to a breath alcohol interlock device in his van for a short time gave off a loud and constant noise.
This occurred whilst the vehicle was stationary with the engine running, and the Applicant in the driver’s seat endeavoured to operate the interlock. He asserted that his injury was the result of a transport accident entitling him to compensation under the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) (“the Act”).
The appeal considered the interpretation of s.3 of the Act to define a transport accident as “an incident directly caused by the driving of a motor car or motor vehicle, a railway train or a tram”.
Ratio
To satisfy the test under the Act, the incident which produces the injury must have a direct connection with the movement or propulsion of the vehicle – and thus be a feature of its driving. There requires a direct causal link between the feature of the driving (in the sense of movement or propulsion of the vehicle and the incident which produces injury.
The alarm that sounded as part of the interlock, had no relationship to the propulsion or movement of the van and therefore unrelated to his control of the vehicle or its movement at the time the alarm sounded.
Decision
Beach JA, Forbes and J Forrest AJJA delivered decision on 6 March 2025. Appeal dismissed
Share this article