Decision
Holmes v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 389
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Summary
A motorcyclist is injured whilst trying to obtain their provisional licence. Whilst performing a quick stop-test, in wet and slippery conditions, the front wheel of the motorcycle locks and the motorcycle falls over.
Was the Claimant motorcyclist wholly or mostly at fault for their accident.
In Holmes v Allianz, a PIC Senior Member assessed the Claimant’s contributory negligence at 40% and, therefore, concluded that she as not wholly or mostly at fault. In coming to this finding, the Senior Member noted that the standard of care required of an inexperienced driver was no different from the standard of any other motorcyclist.
Principles
✅ In motor accidents where only one party is culpable, contributory negligence is measured by how far the driver departed from the required standard of care.
✅ The standard of care expected from an inexperienced driver is that of a reasonable driver, rather than a lower standard modified by their inexperience.
Facts
The Claimant was injured in a motor accident on 2 May 2025.
At the time of her accident, the Claimant held a motorcycle rider learner’s licence and was trying to obtain her provisional motorcycle rider’s licence. Whilst a novice on the motorcycle, the Claimant had held a driver’s licence for 45 years.
On the day of her accident, the Claimant rode her scooter with other riders for a period exceeding two hours. Most of this ride occurred in moderate to heavy rain.
After a lunch break, the Claimant told her instructor that she felt the road was dangerous and slippery. The instructor observed that the Claimant may have to ride in these conditions once she was fully licenced.
When the Claimant commenced the quick stop test, she reached a speed of 10 to 15 kph and applied her brakes. At this point the front wheel locked and she fell to her left.
The Senior Member’s Decision
The Senior Member found that the Claimant was 40% responsible for her accident and, therefore, not wholly or mostly at fault, for the following reasons:
🟪 In accidents where only one party is culpable, contributory negligence is assessed by reference to the extent the injured person’s conduct departed from the required standard of care – AAI Limited t/as GIO v Evic [2024] NSWSC 1272.
🟪 A motorist’s duty to exercise reasonable care, irrespective of experience, is always the same; namely, to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk – Imbree v McNeilly; McNeilly v Imbrue [2008] HCA 40.
🟪 The Claimant was required to complete a quick stop test in order to satisfy the motorcycle licencing requirements.
🟪 The Claimant faced a risk that she might lose control of her motorcycle if she applied the brakes with too much force on a wet and slippery road.
🟪 The Claimant was required to exercise reasonable care by applying the braking technique described in the handbook.
🟪 The Claimant failed to exercise reasonable care by applying the brakes of her motorcycle too harshly for the wet conditions.
🟪 A finding of 100% contributory negligence is reserved for the worst possible case – Davis v Swift [2014] NSWCA 458.
🟪 Given her departure from the standard of care required of a motorcycle rider in wet conditions, a just and equitable reduction is 40%.
My Perspective
The decision in Holmes represents another application of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Evic. The Senior Member faithfully followed Evic by assessing the Claimant’s contributory negligence by reference to the extent that her riding conduct departed from the required standard of care.
What makes the decision notable is the Senior Member’s finding – consistent with the High Court’s decision in Imbree – that the standard of care required of the Claimant was the same standard required of any other motorcycle rider, her inexperience notwithstanding.
PJH