Key Takeaways
- Claim type: CTP motor accident claim (pedestrian)
- Our client: 64-year-old cleaner
- Insurer's position: Contributory negligence due to dark clothing and crossing at night, limited earning capacity loss given proximity to retirement
- Result: $460,000 settlement at informal settlement conference
- Solicitors: State Law Group
Three Years From Retirement, and Everything Changed
Our client was 64 years old and three years from retirement. She worked as a cleaner. On 22 May 2022, she was heading home after finishing her shift.
She stepped onto the crossing on a green pedestrian light. A large van struck her.
The injuries were serious: fractured ribs (left 5th to 7th), along with injuries to her neck, back, shoulders, and left leg. Beyond the physical damage, she developed a fear of car travel, sleep disturbances, and sensitivity to noise. She couldn't return to work. Tasks she'd handled her entire adult life, cooking, cleaning, basic household chores, now required help from others.
What the Insurer Argued
The CTP insurer pushed back on two fronts.
First, contributory negligence. It was dark outside and our client was wearing dark clothing. The insurer argued she bore significant responsibility for the accident, despite crossing on a green light. A high contributory negligence finding would have cut her compensation substantially.
Second, loss of earning capacity. With only three years until retirement age, the insurer argued there was limited financial loss to compensate. Their position: she would have stopped working soon regardless of the accident.
Both arguments, taken together, were designed to drive the settlement figure down.
How We Built the Case
We started with what mattered most: the medical evidence. We obtained pre-accident and post-accident medical records to show the full extent of what had changed. Before 22 May 2022, our client was a working, independent woman. After it, she couldn't clean her own home.
We commissioned independent medico-legal reports covering her physical injuries and psychological condition. These reports documented the rib fractures, the musculoskeletal injuries, and the ongoing psychological effects, including the fear of travelling in cars that had developed since the accident.
For the earning capacity argument, we arranged vocational assessments. Our client had worked as a cleaner. She couldn't do that anymore. The assessments confirmed she had no capacity to return to any form of employment, regardless of whether retirement was three years away or ten.
On contributory negligence, the facts were on our side. She was crossing on a green pedestrian light. That's what the light is for. The dark clothing point didn't change the fact that the van driver had a red light. We presented this plainly and pushed back against any finding above a minimal level.
The Outcome
The matter settled at an informal settlement conference for $460,000. Contributory negligence was reduced to just 10%.
Our client didn't have to go to court. The insurer's attempt to minimise her claim on proximity-to-retirement grounds didn't hold up against the vocational evidence. And the contributory negligence argument, which could have reduced her payout by 25% or more, was contained to a fraction of that.
Facing a CTP Claim After a Pedestrian Accident
If you've been injured as a pedestrian and the insurer is arguing you were partly at fault, what happens in the early stages of your claim matters. Medical records, independent reports, and vocational evidence are what separate a fair settlement from a reduced one. You can call us on 1300 011 149 or contact State Law Group online to talk through where your claim stands.
Legal disclaimer: This case study describes the outcome of a specific matter settled on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Every claim involves different injuries, losses, and legal issues. This article is general information, not legal advice. If you need advice about a CTP claim, contact State Law Group directly.
