A correspondent has sent me a link to a video https://www.facebook.com/1610342069289340/posts/2443313849325487/ and said ‘This is an interesting one… Where do you think the young tradie stands in a situation like this?’
The gist of the matter is that the man the subject of the story was involved in a collision when he turned right in front of responding Queensland ambulance and was involved in a collision. The ambulance had its warning lights on but there may be some dispute about whether the siren was on. The young man was driving a vehicle that did not have comprehensive insurance and is concerned that the insurer for the ambulance ‘is not helping’ him. A passenger in the vehicle has received advice that the CTP (compulsory third party) insurer has accepted liability with respect to his personal injuries.
This is in fact standard for any car accident. If you drive a motor vehicle without comprehensive insurance, you are accepting the risk that your car may be damaged, and you have to wear that cost. You cannot guarantee that every accident will be due to someone else’s fault, that you will be able to identify that person, that they will be able to pay the damages and that they will do so when you first ask. Legal Aid Queensland set out what to do if you are in a motor accident and want to claim the costs of damage from another driver – see ‘If you want to make a claim against the other driver’. That’s the process whether the other car is a private car or an ambulance.
The role of the ambulance insurer is to protect their own interest and that of their insured. They do not represent the other party so the ‘other party’ cannot expect them to help. What the insurance company has to do is decide if their driver is legally at fault. That is complicated in a situation like this by the obligation on other road users to give way to emergency ambulances (Transport Operations (Road Use Management–Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld) rr 78 and 79) and the obligation on the driver of the ambulance to drive with reasonable care. Courts can apportion liability so there can be much argument, and hence negotiation, on how much responsibility lies with each driver. If that cannot be negotiated, then a court can decide.
So where does ‘the young tradie stand in a situation like this…’? Just where he would stand in any accident. His vehicle was not comprehensively insured so he has to carry the cost unless he can demonstrate that the other driver was negligent. Demonstrating negligence does not mean convincing channel 9 (who are no doubt only interested because there was video and it was an ambulance) but convincing the other side’s insurer, or a court, that the other driver was at fault. But they won’t be convinced just because the ‘young tradie’ says so, they will have to speak to their driver and also consider what defences are available to them at law. We also have no idea what steps have been taken to get quotes and otherwise make a claim. There’s nothing unique about the video and the story, it just another car accident. I cannot imagine channel 9 running a story – person has car accident and it takes time to settle claim for property damage – but that’s all this story is saying.
As for the CTP insurer accepting liability, that is irrelevant. It’s another insurer (even if owned by the same parent company) making decisions under other law, in this case the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The decision by the CTP insurer in one case has no bearing on the decision of the comprehensive insurer in the claim for property damage.
Australian Emergency Law 
Trying to see where one vehicle can do a right turn in front of another and not be in the wrong. Were there traffic lights involved??
Chris, have a look at the video. He was turning right but the ambulance was passing on his right possibly (but it’s not clear to me) on the wrong side of the road.
Thankyou Michael, as they say look at ALL the clues first. So many to look at here . did the tradie indicate. (I couldn’t see on the video) . did the ambo have his siren on, saw lights (I think) Ambo was moving VERY fast. Wouldn’t make a very good witness would I . One of those things that will keep us, “after the fact” armchair critics busy.
Hey, thanks for the responses. The ambo attempted an overtake on the wrong side of the road after crossing double white lines at the very last possible moment. I was indicating to turn right into a post office. The ambulance was speeding… estimated 100km/hour in a 60 zone (built up area with school, shops, Cafe, road crossings, public park) . Siren wasn’t on but they claim the lights were on, although I didn’t see them. They are refusing to provide their dash camera footage. They came flying around a bend so I had no warning.
The ctp has confirmed the ambulance was at fault and has commenced paying for medical treatment for myself and my passenger. The police report is not explicitly clear who they are saying is at fault but they listed the ambulance as unit 1 which means they consider the ambulance at fault (I’ve been told). They are apparently ‘still investigating’.
I’m open to all feedback, positive and negative. It’s nearly a carbon copy of the case above. I’m arguing that the ambo was acting without due care and they are arguing that the ambo is exempt from all road rules.
Daniel, your case is not ‘a carbon copy of the case above’. The case above is your case. I’ve given you all the feedback I can give both here and in response to your earlier comment – see https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/liability-for-motor-vehicle-accident-nsw-ambulance-on-urgent-duty/#comment-35330
Arrr… Sorry. I thought I was on the other page regarding the accident which was similar that occurred several years ago. Just viewing it on a small moble screen.
Thanks for your information. I will commence action with qcat next.
If vero insurance eventually decides to pursue me for damages to the ambulance, do you think my 3rd party insurer (coles) will defend me and in turn, I can get a resolution if they determine the ambo was at fault?
After the accident, the ambulance driver, who was 4 years younger than me, admitted she wasn’t paying attention and she said she should’ve had her siren on but didn’t think she needed it in the area. When we asked them to write down what happened, they said “you never admit fault at an accident”. They were repeatedly apologising for hitting me and I don’t think they had any intention to blame me for it, but it’s their insurance that have turned out around now.
If you have 3rd party insurance and the other side tries to recover for the damage to the ambulance then yes I would expect your insurer to manage the case for you. But the issue isn’t ‘who was at fault’ and it need not be the case that it was ‘you’ or ‘them’. It can be both drivers are at fault. I can imagine that the ambulance service aren’t pursuing you for damage to the ambulance as it’s not worth their time, effort or money. They know that if they sue you they’ll have all the same arguments you’ll have to have if you sue them. They may well think ‘we’ll pay for our damage but we’re not paying for yours because you’ll have as much trouble proving it was our fault as we’ll have proving it was yours’.
And if they do pursue you your insurance company could chose to defend the claim or to just pay out. The choice is theirs, not yours so they won’t ‘defend’ the claim if they don’t think it’s worth their time, effort or money.
All insurers advise ‘don’t admit liability’ (which is not quite the same as don’t admit fault) as they want the right to review the event in all the circumstances and make their own decisions on how to run a matter. Fault is a question of law and fact and people at the scene of the accident may not know the law (eg the rights of ambulances, the obligations of others etc).
There is, from the insurance companies’ perspectives, no great moral issue here. Are they liable to pay or not? And if you say they are and they say they are not, the only way you can test that is to take them to court or QCAT.
I have watched the video, pretty much frame by frame of the relevant section and to me, it is as clear as mud. I am not able to hear the sound with the video, was the siren on or not?
I don’t know – I have no more information than the video. That’s why I say convincing someone of liability does not mean convincing channel 9 and why you cannot expect an insurer to pay out simply because one driver says ‘it wasn’t my fault’.