Keep up to date with the latest news and developments in insurance law, by subscribing to our blog, InDefence.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

‘Following car’ 75% to blame for unsafe overtaking manouevre

Case note: Veyt v Stevenson & Anor [2015] QDC 84  

CTP Lawyers Brisbane – CTP Law Changes – Truck Accident Qld – MAIA – Motor Accident Insurance Act – Truck Accident Lawyer – Motorcycle Accident Lawyer

Facts

The Plaintiff, Mr Gilbert Veyt (Veyt), a 51 year old motorcycle rider, was attempting to overtake a truck, driven by the Defendant, Mr Lyle Stevenson (Stevenson).

Attempting to pass Stevenson’s truck, Veyt moved his motorcycle into an overtaking lane.  Ahead of the truck, was a bicycle.  All vehicles were travelling in a southerly direction on Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road, Queensland.

At the same time as Veyt was attempting to overtake Stevenson’s truck, Stevenson moved into the northbound lane, to provide a safe distance between his vehicle and the bicycle.

Veyt, unaware of why Stevenson’s truck had moved into the overtaking lane, attempted to abort his passing manoeuvre.  However, he lost control of his motorcycle and crashed onto the roadway.

Veyt alleged that Stevenson’s truck clipped his arm.  However, he gave inconsistent versions of the accident during his property damage claim.  An entry in the insurer’s records noted that Veyt said it was his motorcycle that actually clipped the back of the truck.

Issue for determination

Veyt alleged that Stevenson was negligent for (among other reasons):

  1. failing to observe the motorcycle was overtaking the truck.
  2. failing to indicate his intention to move into the overtaking lane.
  3. failing to exercise due care and skill in the management and control of the truck.

The insurer for Stevenson, CGU, defended the claim, alleging that Veyt had failed to keep a reasonable distance behind the truck, failed to keep his vehicle under control and failed to have regard for his own safety.

Findings

In a judgment handed down in the Southport District Court on 21 April 2015, the Court made these findings of fact:

  1. The truck driver used his indicators, was acting lawfully, was not speeding and checked his mirror before moving into the overtaking lane.  The court also found that he did not leave Veyt insufficient room to overtake and only entered the overtaking lane by a couple of metres.
  2. Veyt was, for the most part, travelling in the truck’s blind spot and failed to observe the truck’s indicators, probably because he was attempting to pass the truck at 90 km/hr.
  3. Stevenson’s truck did not come into contact with Veyt.
  4. Stevenson was only 20 to 30 metres away from Jensen before he activated his indicators.

The Court determined that the actions of both drivers contributed to the accident.  The Court said that Stevenson, as an experienced truck driver, should have known that there was a risk that a vehicle travelling behind, could be in his blind spot.  Because of this, he should have been more careful in checking his rear view mirrors before moving to the right.  Stevenson was also considered negligent for indicating his intention to move into the overtaking lane too late.

Given the findings of fact, the Court found that Veyt was negligent and considered an appropriate distribution of blame would be 25% to Stevenson (Defendant) and 75% to Veyt (Plaintiff).

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a road accident by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Kate Denning

Kate is the Founder & Principal of Denning Insurance Law. Kate opened her own practice out of a desire to deliver high value, specialised legal services. With top tier and in-house experience, her passion for delivering great results, approachable manner and breadth of experience, set her apart from her competitors.

Kate Denning‘Following car’ 75% to blame for unsafe overtaking manouevre

Related News

InDefence covers legal and technical issues in a general way. Changes in circumstances or the law may affect the completeness or accuracy of the information published. InDefence is not designed to express opinions on specific cases, to provide legal advice or to establish a relationship of client and lawyer between Denning Insurance Law and the reader, or any third party. No person should act or refrain from acting solely on the basis of this publication. You should seek legal advice particular to your circumstances before taking action on any issue dealt with in this blog.