A mere temporal connection between a motor vehicle being in motion and an injury occurring is insufficient to satisfy the causal requirement under the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA); there must be evidence of a causal connection between the driving (the operation and control of the vehicle) and the injury. Where the cause of an equipment failure in a vehicle is unidentified, no inference of causal connection to driving can be drawn merely from the fact the vehicle was moving at the time. McLure JA's obiter analysis suggests that the statutory causal connection does not require negligent driving — driver-caused and controlled motion suffices — but this was not the ratio of the decision.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.