Hayden Norman v Transport Accident Commission
Judgment Appealed From:
Norman v Transport Accident Commission (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Robertson, 14 September 2023)
Facts
The case of Hayden Norman v Transport Accident Commission arose from a claim by Hayden Norman (“the plaintiff”), against the Transport Accident Commission (“TAC”) (“the defendant”) under the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic). The claim related to injuries sustained by Norman while he was a passenger in a car driven recklessly by a friend. Norman sought compensation on the basis that the driver’s negligence caused the accident. The TAC raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria (a common law doctrine that states that a person who willingly puts themselves in a position of danger cannot claim damages if they are harmed). The TAC argued that Norman willingly accepted the risk of harm by choosing to participate in the activity of reckless driving.
The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the plaintiff was aware of the driver’s reckless behaviour, as similar conduct had occurred the previous day with Norman’s participation. On the day of the accident, Norman again entered the car, knowing the driver intended to engage in similar conduct. The jury in the County Court of Victoria ultimately found in favour of the TAC, accepting the defence that Norman had voluntarily assumed the risk of harm. Norman sought leave to appeal the verdict, asserting errors in jury directions, improper reliance on prior conduct, and that the jury's decision was unreasonable.
Principles Used to Come to Decision
The central principle in this case was volenti non fit injuria, which prevents a person from claiming damages for injuries arising from risks they knowingly and willingly accepted. For this defence to succeed, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the risk and voluntarily accepted it. This principle was vital in evaluating Norman’s conduct, which demonstrated both awareness and participation in the dangerous activity.
The Court also addressed the rules governing jury directions and the proper use of evidence of prior conduct. The court reaffirmed that a trial judge must ensure that juries are not improperly influenced by tendency reasoning unless it is explicitly permitted under the evidence rules. In this case, the trial judge directed the jury to avoid such reasoning, confining their consideration of prior conduct to assessing Norman's awareness and consent to the risk.
Appellate courts generally defer to jury verdicts, intervening only if the decision is unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. Here, the court emphasised that an appeal is not a re-hearing but rather, a review of whether the jury's decision was open on the evidence and within the bounds of reasonableness.
Decision
The supreme court of appeal refused leave to appeal, finding no real prospect of success. It held that the initial jury's verdict was reasonable, supported by evidence showing Norman's awareness of and voluntary participation in the risk. The court rejected the argument that the trial judge’s directions were inadequate, affirming that the instructions appropriately addressed the issues of risk definition and impermissible tendency reasoning. The court also noted that the case was presented on the basis that Norman knew of the reckless driving and accepted the associated risks, a finding supported by the evidence.
Lessons/New Principles
This case highlights the strength of the volenti non fit injuria defence in situations where a plaintiff knowingly participates in inherently risky behaviour. It reinforces the requirement that a plaintiff’s awareness of and voluntary acceptance of the risk must be clearly established. The case also highlights the importance of proper jury directions, particularly in cases involving prior conduct, to ensure that evidence is used appropriately and within the bounds of the law.
Additionally, the decision reiterates the limits of appellate review, emphasising that appeals are not opportunities to retry a case but to assess whether the original decision was reasonably open on the evidence. The ruling serves as a reminder to plaintiffs and practitioners that engaging in risky behaviour with full awareness may preclude recovery for resulting injuries, solidifying the doctrine of personal responsibility in such contexts.
How we can assist…
At Bastion Legal, we help everyday Australians navigate complex legal issues with practical, straightforward advice. Our team is dedicated to resolving disputes, protecting rights, and achieving fair outcomes. Whatever challenge you’re facing, we provide clear guidance, strong representation, and practical solutions tailored to your situation.
If you’re facing a situation like the one discussed above, you do not need to face these issues alone. We’re here to protect your interests and work towards the outcome you deserve.
Contact us today for a free consultation and take the next step with confidence.