Where an injury is caused by both a defect in a vehicle and the employer's negligent direction, the injury may still fall within the definition of 'injury' under s 3(1)(a)(iv) of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW) because the definition requires only that the injury be 'a result of' (not 'the result of') the defect. The words 'if, and only if' do not narrow the ordinary commonsense meaning of 'caused by a defect in the vehicle'. The CTP insurer may be liable even where the employer's negligent direction was a concurrent and arguably more significant cause. The question of whether the purpose of the causal inquiry (determining which statutory regime applies) should condition the answer to the causation question was left unresolved, with the majority declining to adopt Santow JA's purposive approach.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.