Motorcyclist not mostly at fault
Arnott v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 600 – Motorcyclist not ‘mostly at fault’ in overtaking collision.
7 May 2026
In November 2025, the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) delivered an important decision clarifying how fault is assessed when a motorcyclist collides with a turning vehicle. In Arnott v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 600, the Commission found that rider, Hannah Arnott, was not wholly or mostly at fault, despite overtaking at the time of the crash. Her contributory negligence was assessed at just 15%, meaning her statutory benefits were not cut off after 52 weeks. Statutory benefits are payments made to individuals injured in car accidents and include reasonable and necessary medical treatment and any income loss arising from their injuries. These benefits are cut off after 52 weeks if you are considered wholly or mostly at fault for the accident.
This decision provides valuable insight into how the Commission analyses driving behaviour, witness evidence and fault disputes under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW).
Background
The accident occurred on 11 December 2021 on Waratah Road, Mangrove Mountain at approximately 6:20pm. Ms Arnott was riding her motorcycle along Waratah Road directly behind a Toyota Camry.
Behind both vehicles was a Holden Rodeo driven by Matt Barnes, with Jim Bracken as a front-seat passenger.
The evidence provided by Matt Barnes and Jim Bracken was consistent: while travelling along the road, the Camry was being driven in an uncertain and erratic manner. It repeatedly:
- slowed down and accelerated again;
- veered towards the left as if attempting to pull over or park;
- indicated left at one point, then cancelled the indicator and drove forward; and
- slowed near multiple driveways without committing to a turn.
To both witnesses – and to Ms Arnott – the Camry appeared to be searching for somewhere to stop on the left-hand side of the road.
After cresting a hill, with clear road ahead, and concerned she may become trapped behind the Camry if it stopped suddenly, Ms Arnott:
- indicated right;
- moved onto the right-hand side of the road; and
- commenced an overtaking manoeuvre.
As she approached the vehicle – approximately one car length behind – the Camry suddenly turned right into a private driveway, crossing directly into her path. Ms Arnott stated there was no consistent indication of a right-hand turn; at best, she saw a single flash of the right indicator at the last moment. She collided with the driver’s rear side of the vehicle, was thrown over the roof and suffered serious injuries.
Allianz determined that the accident was wholly or mostly caused by Ms Arnott. This meant her statutory benefits would cease after 52 weeks. Ms Arnott disputed the decision and applied to the PIC for review.
The insurer's position
The insurer relied on:
- the fact that she was overtaking;
- expert biomechanical analysis suggesting limited time for the driver of the Camry to react once he saw Ms Arnott attempting to overtake as he went to turn right;
- the claimant not holding a motorcycle licence (though she was an experienced rider); and
- her estimated speed of 50–60 km/h.
Evidence before the Commission
Independent witnesses
Mr Barnes and Mr Bracken were critical to the case. They both described:
- a clear, unobstructed view of the motorcycle behind the Camry;
- the Camry’s repeated slowing and drifting to the left as if the driver was looking for somewhere on the left to park;
- the Camry’s acceleration back into the middle of the lane after pulling to the left;
- no visible right-hand indicator before the sudden turn; and
- the Camry’s unexpected, abrupt right-hand movement across the rider’s path.
They emphasised that nothing about the Camry’s driving suggested it was about to turn right.
Local court decision
Importantly, Ms Arnott had earlier been found not guilty of negligent driving in relation to the same incident. In those proceedings, the Magistrate accepted that there was a reasonable possibility the Camry driver did not indicate before Ms Arnott began overtaking – which would mean that Ms Arnott was executing a legal manoeuvre when overtaking. Ms Arnott did acknowledge upon cross-examination that to overtake in the manner she did was not the safest option, and that it would have been safer to slow down and distance herself from the hazard posed by the Camry.
Driver's evidence
The Camry driver claimed he checked his mirrors and saw a dark four-wheel drive behind him – but never saw the motorcycle at all.
Biomechanical evidence
The insurer’s expert provided collision analysis but could not establish:
- how long the driver’s indicator was activated; and
- whether the rider had sufficient opportunity to observe any signal.
Findings: Was the rider wholly or mostly at fault?
If the rider’s contributory negligence is assessed at 100% for the accident, Ms Arnott would be deemed as wholly at fault for the accident. If her contributory negligence is assessed somewhere between 62–99%, she would be deemed as mostly at fault for the accident. If contributory negligence is assessed at 61% or below, she is not considered wholly or mostly at fault for the accident but her weekly benefits would be discounted according to her percentage of contributory negligence.
1. Insured driver's conduct
The PIC found the Camry driver:
- did not properly check his mirrors;
- only activated his right indicator at the last second;
- drove in a pattern that reasonably suggested he was going to pull left;
- was driving in an erratic manner by accelerating and decelerating his vehicle; and
- executed a sudden, unexpected right-hand turn across the overtaking rider’s path.
This conduct was the primary cause of the collision.
2. Rider's conduct
The PIC accepted that overtaking was a justified decision given the Camry’s behaviour.
However, some contributory negligence was found because:
- she did not use her horn to warn the driver; and
- she could have been more cautious given the vehicle’s erratic movements.
Her contributory negligence was assessed at 15%, well below the 61% threshold for ‘mostly at fault’.
Outcome
The PIC therefore determined that Ms Arnott was not wholly or mostly at fault for the accident. As a result, she was entitled to the continuation of her statutory benefits (although her weekly payments would be discounted by 15%).
Why this case matters
Arnott shows that:
- overtaking does not automatically make a rider mostly at fault;
- erratic driving and poor indication from the lead vehicle are critical;
- independent witness evidence can overturn insurer decisions; and
- ‘mostly at fault’ is a high threshold, and insurers often get it wrong.
The ALA thanks Charlotte Walters for this contribution.
This is an edited version of an article first published by the Law Office of Conrad Curry.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Australian Lawyers Alliance.
Learn how you can get involved and contribute an article.