TRANSPORT ACCIDENTS IN VICTORIA: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW Part 1: Transport Accident or Workplace Injury? Understanding Compensation for Injuries in Victoria

Part one - workplace

If you have been injured in a transport accident in Victoria, regardless of whether you were at fault, you may be entitled to compensation under the TA Act for loss of income, medical expenses, lump sum permanent impairment compensation and other benefits.

To qualify as a transport accident under the TA Act, the following conditions must be met:

There may be a dispute over whether your injury qualifies under the TA Act, or falls under workplace injury legislation.

The case of Carson v Victorian WorkCover Authority; Carson v Transport Accident Commission (2024) VCC 354 (“Carson”) provides insight into how the Court determines whether an injury was caused by a transport accident, or a workplace accident. In this case, the Plaintiff, a bus driver, experienced worsening back pain across several incidents. The Plaintiff attended his general practitioner on 29 January 2016 reporting upper back and right shoulder pain allegedly due to a faulty seat in the bus he was driving at work. On 8 April 2016, and again on 22 June 2016, the backrest and seat gave way while driving over speed humps, causing significant back pain.

The Plaintiff made a transport accident claim under the TA Act and a workers compensation claim under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (VIC) (“WIRC Act”) as a result of the accident on 22 June 2016, raising the question of which type of claim applied.

Section 3(1) of the TA Act defines a transport accident as“an incident directly caused by the driving of a motor car or motor vehicle, a railway train or a tram.” This means that a direct casual link must exist between the injury and the driving of the vehicle.   

In Foursquare Construction Management Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (2022) 68 VR 415, the Court stressed that the accident must be directly caused by vehicle’s operation. Similarly, in Insurance Commission of Western Australia v Container Handlers Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 89,  McHugh J held that “directly caused by the driving” requires a causal link between the injury and some feature of the driving.

The Transport Accident Commission (TAC) in Carson argued that the injury did not meet the definition of a transport accident, suggesting it was the result of a defective seat provided by the employer, with the incidents being part of the Plaintiff’s ongoing work environment.

However, the Victorian WorkCover Authority contended that the sudden jolt to the spine experienced when driving over the speed hump on 22 June 2016 constituted a discrete event, satisfying the definition of a transport accident under the TA Act.

The Court found that the incident on 22 June 2016 was a “transport accident” as defined in Section 3(1) of the TA Act on the basis of the following:

The Court emphasised that each case must be assessed on its individual facts.

It is essential to correctly determine whether your injury arises from a transport accident or a workplace activity as this affects which compensation scheme applies. Lodging the wrong type of claim can result in additional costs and delays.